The Other Side of the Ecotourism Coin:Consumptive Tourism in Southern Africa

Marina NovelliCentre for Tourism Policy Studies, School of Service Management,University of Brighton, Darley Road, Eastbourne BN20 7UR, UK

Jonathan I. BarnesEconomics Unit, Directorate of Environmental Affairs, Ministry ofEnvironment and Tourism, PO Box 25942, Windhoek, Namibia

Michael HumavinduDevelopment Bank of Namibia, PO Box 235, Windhoek, Namibia

Over the 20th century, wildlife-based tourism has experienced significant growth,with increasing emphasis placed on ecotourism as one of the most beneficial formsof sustainable tourism. A widely accepted argument is that ecotourism is a non-consumptive practice far better received than those consumptive forms, such assport or trophy hunting tourism. This paper discusses aspects of perception, con-sumption and conservation of wildlife in relation to the North–South divide andthe controversial issue of sport and trophy hunting tourism. By presenting resultsof research conducted in Namibia and Botswana, this paper presents a provocativeargument that ecotourism embraces forms of consumptive tourism, which canprove to be beneficial to the economy, the environment and local communities.

Keywords: Botswana, consumptive ecotourism, Namibia, sustainable tourism develop-ment, wildlife tourism

IntroductionAs different perspectives are offered on the definition and conceptual frame-

works for wildlife tourism (Baker, 1997; Novelli & Humavindu, 2005; New-some et al., 2002; Orams, 2002), a major problem in the identification of validforms of sustainable wildlife tourism remains. One of the most researched sustain-able tourism segments is ecotourism, often promoted as the solution to the pro-blems of those countries experiencing the negative impacts of an ever growingand demanding tourism industry. Increasing emphasis is placed on the abilityof ecotourism to benefit local communities and the environment. Further tothis, a widely accepted argument is that ecotourism is a non-consumptiveactivity (Mintel, 2004; Reynolds & Braithwaite, 2001) and that, although itseems to offer ‘varying levels of benefits’ (Baker, 1997: 273; see also Duffy,2002) in social, economic and environmental terms, it is a far more acceptedpractice than those consumptive forms of tourism such as sport or trophyhunting tourism. However, sport and trophy hunters have claimed that theiractivity can be identified as a consumptive form of ecotourism, which in manycases has proved more beneficial (low-volume and high-value) for the host

62

1472-4049/06/01 062-18 $20.00/0 # 2006 M. Novelli et al.JOURNAL OF ECOTOURISM Vol. 5, Nos. 1&2, 2006

environment than non-consumptive activities, such as photographic tourism(Anon, 1993; Morrill, 1995; Novelli & Humavindu, 2005; Strauss, 2003).

In this context, the discussion of wildlife tourism becomes essential in termsof perception, consumption and conservation of wildlife, highlighting thedivide between North and South (Akama, 1996; Smith & Duffy, 2003), thesplit between the different school of thought on ‘ethic of use’ or ‘ethic ofnature’ (Simmons, 1993; Wearing & Neil, 1999: 11; see also Nash, 1989), thecomplex argument on ‘who has the right’ to decide on ‘how to utilise’ theenvironment and its wildlife (Smith & Duffy, 2003: 145) and on the ‘moralstanding’ related to modern ‘environmental ethics’ (Holden, 2003).

Using Namibia and to a lesser extent Botswana as case studies, this paperoffers a review of key issues related to the consumptive tourism sector, withthe purpose of assessing whether trophy hunting tourism can be consideredas a form of ecotourism, aimed at maximising community benefits, sustainableuse of wildlife and conservation.

Perception, Consumption and Conservation: Wildlife and theNorth–South Divide

In order to understand the links and the conflicts between nature, wildlifeutilisation and community development which have emerged over the pastcentury in Africa, it is necessary to gain a deeper understanding of people’srelationship with nature (Twyman, 2001). The connections existing betweendeveloping countries (the South), rural communities, and the wildliferoaming in their surrounding natural environment, differs dramatically fromthe western (the North) perceptions of the wild environment (Akama, 1996).For instance, the Western principles of wildlife consumption and conservation(wilderness as a tourism commodity) have often conflicted with the practical-ities of the daily livelihood, human/beast coexistence, self-defence, subsistence,poverty, survival and victuals routine of those people living in strict contactwith wildlife (wilderness as a daily commodity).

In order to further understand the divide between North and South and theirdifferent environmental management perspectives, it is important to place thatdivide within the broader debate on sustainable development. During the 2002Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, the issue of‘environmental sustainability’ was strongly questioned and criticised byleaders from the Southern states, who argued that it was ‘a luxury theycould not afford since it constituted an impediment to [their] development’(Smith & Duffy, 2003: 137). They also perceived the Northern position as oneof double standards, as they contributed the most to current environmentaldegradation, but were the least willing to provide remedies to tackle them(Adams, 2001; Smith & Duffy, 2003). In relation to this controversy, the fact isthat also in terms of nature conservation, the northern states have mostlyimplemented strategies based on their experiences and needs. Basically, asAkama highlighted

[h]uman civilization had conquered and triumphed over nature.Consequently, most of their natural landscape, especially in Europe andeastern parts of North America, had been transformed to farms and

The Other Side of the Ecotourism Coin in Southern Africa 63

pasture land, urban settlements and transportation networks. Forest landhad been cleared and most of the wildlife had vanished. Thus nature wasno longer perceived as a threat to humans in particular and civilization ingeneral. (Akamas, 1996: 568)

On the other hand the South was to be persuaded to curb industrialisationin favour of the global environmental good, endangered by the North in thefirst place.

In this complex context, while tourism is often proposed as the panacea forgrowth and development, potentially satisfying the needs of the sustainabledevelopment arena, the social and economic conditions of certain Africancountries require a far more nuanced consideration in terms of priorities fortheir local growth and development agenda, where tourism may not necess-arily mean beneficial results. Further to this, ‘[m]ost governments encouragethe growth of tourism in their respective countries in order to support econ-omic development. For poor countries, regions, towns and cities, tourism isseen as the fast track to development’ (Mbaiwa, 2003: 448). In a rather simplisticway, it can be argued that this assumption is based on the often emphasisedcomparative advantage of some developing countries, where the environ-ment allows certain recreational activities not or no longer available in theNorth. People from the North have developed the need to visit thosecountries, which has determined an ever-increasing demand for alternativeleisure practices and services in the developing world.

Growth and development are certainly complicated matters, and one of thekey problems underpinned by tourism development is that local communitiestake little or no part in the decision process. As from an ecotourism perspective,Smith and Duffy (2003: 138) emphasise that ‘the commitment to communitydevelopment through ecotourism thus combines ideas of sustainable develop-ment and “green capitalism”, where natural resources are viewed as a means ofgenerating revenue’. In relation to this, there is a widely accepted assumptionthat ecotourism is a non-consumptive practice and that ‘if it helps the localcommunity and is environmentally sound, it must be good’ (quote from a com-munity member interviewed in the Kunene region of Namibia). Over the past10 years, the use of the term ecotourism has become somewhat of a cliche,increasingly used as a promotional mean for short term economic revenue,rather than aimed at long term sustainable tourism; this leads to a variety ofsocio-economic and environmental consequences. In general terms, ecotourismis seen as a tool for development and conservation and ‘[i]n theory, [it] shouldsatisfy a number of key objectives’, such as the conservation of the environ-ment – through control and restriction on access and ‘ethical conduct’ – andthe production of ‘direct economic benefits’, local employment (Duffy, 2002:15–17) and empowerment. In relation to this, there are forms of consumptivetourism such as sport or trophy hunting, which can pursue similar objectivesstrictly connected to the principles of sustainable development, which areoften dismissed as environmentally destructive.

Bearing in mind the complex discussion on the use of the environment asa commodity and the ethics of the environment based on ecologicalprinciples (Nash, 1989; Simmons, 1993; Wearing & Neil, 1999), this paper

64 Journal of Ecotourism

aims at assessing whether a sustainable use of the environment –‘ethics of use’rather than ‘ethics of the nature’ (Wearing & Neil, 1999: 11), through consump-tive tourism, could prove beneficial in economic, environmental and socialterms.

Wildlife, Tourism and the African ContextOver the 20th century, the increasing desire of tourists for experiencing and

interacting with the natural environment has stimulated an impressive growthin wildlife tourism: ‘Tourism based upon wildlife has become the leadingforeign exchange earner in several countries’ (Reynolds & Braithwaite,2001: 32) with Africa being one of the most affected continents. In relation tothis, ‘although hunting animals for food and for sport has existed for thousandsof years, the idea of visiting and observing wild animals for recreational pur-poses, as a tourist attraction, has been a more recent phenomenon’ (Orams,2002: 282). Wildlife-based tourism boomed in the mid-1960s, when increasedinterest in nature and wildlife conservation, travel affordability and accessibil-ity to unspoiled and remote areas by western tourists stimulated the develop-ment of a varied African wildlife tourism sector. Both non-consumptive andconsumptive products (Table 1) and practices are to be found rooted in differentand specific interest (i.e. scientific observation) and historical backgrounds (i.e.big game hunting in the colonial time). For instance, the ‘safari’ market – both

Table 1 The wildlife tourism product (modified from Reynolds & Braithwaite’sdefinition, 2001: 33–34)

Categories Activities

Nature-based tours withwildlife component

Wildlife as a key but incidental part of the product

Visit to locations withgood wildlife presence

Accommodation located in proximity to wildlife-richhabitat (i.e. water holes) and they might attractwildlife through the provision of food or otherenticement

Visit to artificial attractionsbased on wildlife

Man-made attractions where the species are kept incaptivity (i.e. zoos), and may even be trained (i.e.elephant and camel trails)

Animal watching Observation of certain species based on special interest(i.e. bird-watching)

Habitat specific tours Based on a habitat rich in wildlife and usuallyamenable to being accessed by specialised vehicle orvessel

Thrill-offering tours Exhibition of a dangerous or large species enticed toengage in spectacular behaviour in the wild by theoperator

Hunting/fishing tours Consumptive use of wildlife in natural habitat, semi-captive or farmed condition

Ecotourism Education and interpretation of the naturalenvironment together with cultural aspects, oftenlinked to conservation practices

The Other Side of the Ecotourism Coin in Southern Africa 65

to view and hunt wildlife – became a popular and fashionable activity withinthe upper class societies of western Europe and of the US, aiming at anoutdoor experience characterised by ‘elements of adventure, thrill of thechase, challenge of the shooting [with a camera or with a rifle] and uniquenessof the landscape’ (Novelli & Humavindu, 2005: 172).

In an ever-urbanised world, people now travel to reconnect with nature(Orams, 2002). They are increasingly stimulated by the constant messagegiven by the media on the importance of the environment and by documen-taries and travel programmes promoting the existence of unique naturalenvironments. The range of opportunities for people to interact with wildlifecontinues to increase and attention is often placed in the popular ecotourismsphere, with its varied impacts on the host environment. In relation to these,there have been appropriate criticisms of the ‘so-called environmentally sensi-tive or sustainable ecotourism’ highlighted by Orams (2002: 282) and the com-ments made by Baker (1997: 273–274) on ‘sustainable utilisation’ of wildlife inthe context of the ‘controversial and emotional’ arguments on consumptivetourism.

Baker (1997: 274) suggests that, in the case of Africa, while there seems to bean agreement on the necessity of preserving the continent’s ‘wildlife herita-ge . . . for future generations, there is no consensus on the strategy. The conser-vation community and the public are split over attempts to define what are, inprinciple, the best methods for Africa, and what are best methods for individ-ual communities in Africa.’ In southern Africa, commercial utilisation of wild-life has taken place on leasehold/private, communal and public land, involvinga wide range of activities, such as: wildlife viewing tourism, safari huntingtourism, community wildlife use, game ranching, intensive ostrich and croco-dile production and elephant culling. Consumptive products have consistedof meat, hides, skins, ivory and live sales. The economic characteristics of wild-life use activities are varied, ranging from low-input, small-scale, labour inten-sive subsistence use of low-density, free-ranging wildlife, to capital-intensivefarming enterprises with captive breading and rearing. The various activitiesdiffer widely in terms of efficiency of their land use, capital, labour, manage-ment, transport costs and environmental compatibility (with tourism at thecompatible extreme and intensive farming at the incompatible extreme) aswell as in terms of private financial profitability, economic rates of return andcontribution to national income per unit of land (Barnes, 1998a).

Commercial wildlife use activities provide returns for private investors orentrepreneurs, but they also contribute to the livelihoods of southern Africanrural communities that have been marginalised historically. Here, they areoften complementary to other household coping strategies like livestockkeeping and crop production and have contributed to development in commu-nal areas (Ashley & Barnes, 1996; Ashley & LaFranchi, 1997). Other forms ofland use occupy significant areas, such as conservation of wildlife and forestsin national parks, game reserves and forest reserves. In these areas, wildlifecould be used to generate direct use value but is often maintained primarilyfor its non-use values (option and existence values) to society (Barnes, 1998a).

In southern Africa, non-consumptive wildlife viewing tourism and con-sumptive sport or trophy hunting tourism are important uses of wildlife.

66 Journal of Ecotourism

These two may seem mutually exclusive, and it may be suggested that a choiceshould be made between one or the other. In southern Africa they are com-monly practised side by side, and although they are mutually exclusive on alocal scale, there is growing evidence that they are not entirely mutuallyexclusive at the district and national levels (Barnes, 1998a, 2001). This assertionis examined in more detail in this article, using data from Namibia andBotswana.

Sport and trophy hunting has increasingly become part of conservationargument and policies, and is promoted as a low-impact sustainable useapproach, adding value to natural resources (Hofer, 2002; Novelli &Humavindu, 2005). However, this form of consumptive tourism remains con-troversial, being the focus of animated discussion between key interestgroups, such as conservationists, animal welfare movements, hunter associ-ations, NGOs, as well as government on national and international levels.Hofer makes the point that

[t]rophy hunting is a controversial and misunderstood activity for severalreasons. Firstly trophy hunting is controversial on ethical, social andcultural levels. The practice of trophy hunting generates contradictorypositions towards hunting in general. While some believe that theconsumptive use of individual animals for the sake of the population,the species, or the ecosystem, is ethically acceptable, others vehementlyoppose the killing of animals for personal satisfaction. (Hofer, 2002: 14)

This is particularly reinforced by the position of the media and NGOs,which often reports on illegal or unethical practices, supported by shockingillustrations or by associating the activity with the colonial era.

Disagreement exists on the social equity and economic viability of trophyhunting. Criticisms have been directed at some of the initiatives aimed at devol-ving ownership and use rights to local communities, such as the CAMPFIREproject in Zimbabwe, which places emphasis on trophy hunting. On theother hand, devolution of ownership has been generally considered as soundpractice for wildlife management (see Smith & Duffy, 2003: 145–158). Anincreasing number of studies indicate that through trophy hunting, wildlifebecomes economically important for the rural populations and increasestheir interest, concern and protective attitude towards the preservation ofthis new or newly recognised source of income (Baker, 1997; Barnes, 1998b;Barnes et al., 2002; Humavindu, 2002; Novelli & Humavindu, 2005). Thereare also indications that, through trophy hunting, government agencies aredriven to implement adequate legislation, support protection strategies,conduct research and monitoring activities and to aim at the reallocation ofrevenues to management, protection and nature conservation (Hofer, 2002;Novelli & Humavindu, 2005).

The Case Study SettingNamibia embraces a large area (824,000 km2) on the west coast of southern

Africa. It has a population of 1.8 million people. Its environment ranges fromthe extremely arid Namib desert in the west, along the coast, through arid

The Other Side of the Ecotourism Coin in Southern Africa 67

karroid shrub lands and arid and semi-arid savannas, to semi-arid woodlands(700 mm mean annual rainfall) in the north east. Botswana occupies 582,000km2 to the east of Namibia and is in the middle of the subcontinent. It has apopulation of 1.7 million people. Botswana’s environments range from aridsavanna (250 mm mean annual rainfall) in the Kalahari desert of the southwest,to semi-arid woodlands (650 mm mean annual rainfall) in the northeast.

The natural faunas of Namibia and Botswana are similar. Spectacular,species-rich wildlife communities, containing elephant (Loxodonta africana),buffalo (Syncerus caffra), lion (Panthera leo), and leopard (Panthera pardus), aswell as a diverse range of other ungulates and predators, are associated withthe woodlands and permanent wetlands of the north east. Less diverse wildlifecommunities occur in the south-central and western savanna and desert habi-tats, of the Kalahari and Namib deserts. These contain desert-adapted ungulatespecies, such as oryx (Oryx gazella) and springbok (Antidorcas marsupialis),along with several other ungulates and predators. Namibia contains ahealthy population of black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis).

Scenery attractive enough for tourism is especially prevalent in the northeastern wetlands and river-front areas, typified by the famous Okavangodelta, and the desert escarpment areas of western Namibia. Selected areashave unusual attractions including pans, such as the Etosha pan, or unusualspecies, such as mountain zebra (Equus zebra) or dik dik (Madoqua kirkii),which can serve to attract tourists. The north western escarpment area inNamibia has unique populations of elephant and black rhinoceros and lion,existing in a desert setting.

The central and southern part of Namibia (some 43% of the country) consistsof private land, which is mostly used for extensive livestock production.Significant stocks of wildlife, mostly plains game, occur on this land. InBotswana only 6% of the land is under such tenure. The rest of land in thetwo countries is public land, mostly under communally-controlled tribaltenure, but also under government control as protected areas (national parksand game reserves). The public lands contain diverse and spectacular popu-lations of wildlife, and it is here that most of the key big five species are found.

Landholders on private land and communities on communal land have beengiven custodial and use rights over their wildlife, and this has resulted in con-siderable investment in wildlife stocks in these areas. It has also resulted in theuse of these stocks by landholders, for meat, and also for both consumptivetourism (trophy hunting), and non-consumptive tourism (wildlife viewing).On private land, owners have developed commercial wildlife use activities,and in several situations have joined together with groups of neighbours toform ‘conservancies’, which provide economies of scale in wildlife manage-ment (Barnes & de Jager, 1996). On communal land communities in Namibiaand Botswana have formed management entities (termed conservancies inNamibia), through which they are able to exercise custodial rights.

At least half of all tourism in both countries is directed at nature-based pur-suits. Non-consumptive activities take place in protected areas, on communalland and on private land. They range from self-drive or guided campingsafaris, to luxury lodge experiences, some of which promote themselves as eco-tourism operations. Consumptive tourism takes the form of trophy hunting

68 Journal of Ecotourism

experiences out of hunting camps and lodges, on private and communal land.In Botswana hunting tourism occurs mostly on communal land, and inNamibia it occurs mostly on private land where the emphasis is on plainsgame species.

The introduction of wildlife-based tourism on private land has resulted insome conversion of land use from livestock to wildlife production. This hasbeen partly due to higher financial incentives associated with wildlife, andpartly due to the need to diversify income and reduce dependence on livestock,which is no longer subsidised. Among communities on communal land theintroduction of wildlife-based tourism has not displaced livestock productionsignificantly, but has tended to make use of new land, mostly unsuited to live-stock. Wildlife tourism on Namibian communal land has thus emerged aslargely complementary to traditional income earning activities. It has providedsignificant new cash income for households, enhancing overall incomes, withlittle opportunity cost (Ashley & LaFranchi, 1997).

MethodologyFieldwork

Fieldwork was conducted to gather data on the general characteristics ofwildlife tourism, and this was restricted to Namibia. During the preliminarysix-month fieldwork period, mostly in the Windhoek and Etosha NationalPark areas, as well as in the Namib desert and Kunene region, a mixedmethod approach was employed, drawing on a range of disciplines,approaches and techniques. Oral testimonies provided the main source ofinformation, and data were gathered through semi-structured interviews,group discussion and informal discussions. These were complemented byobservations, made during participation in organised and self-drive trips (i.e.ecotourism safaris and sport/trophy hunting safaris), and derived from sec-ondary sources, which provided the theoretical framework for analysis. Thetheoretical framework was built on the basis of a literature review of previouslyconducted and other authors’ work on: wildlife tourism, ethics of tourism,North/South divide, tourism and the environment, consumptive and non-consumptive tourism and other related southern African experiences (i.e.Botswana and Zimbabwe). Most of the Namibia country data and statisticswere obtained from the Namibian Ministry of Environment and Tourism.Local guides, employed during the self-drive excursions, also acted as trans-lators when needed. Consideration was given to the possibility that translationof information might have caused misunderstanding and bias, but the employ-ment of a local graduate in tourism management, with knowledge of the themeof discussion and of the key interviewing techniques used, contributed greatlyin ensuring that the interviewing process and the response annotation wereneutral and accurate. Fieldwork was overall conducted over a two-yearperiod in different seasons.

In relation to the Namibia and Botswana contexts, most of the researchresults presented rely heavily on the researchers’ observation, judgement andexperiences of wildlife utilisation, consumptive and non-consumptivetourism and of sites visited. Therefore, this paper offers an evaluation of the

The Other Side of the Ecotourism Coin in Southern Africa 69

Namibian and Botswana experiences but does not attempt generalisation ofany kind.

Financial and economic analysis

A desk study was conducted to collect collate and assemble the significantamounts of information on the financial and economic characteristics ofwildlife-based tourism in Namibia and Botswana. The authors undertookmuch of the work, with the analysis consisting mainly of extracting andassessing relevant results from their own previously conducted studies.

A budget and cost-benefit analysis approach was used to determine valuesassociated with tourism land uses in the study area. Barnes (2001) presenteda more detailed description of these methods. Briefly, the financial profitability(return to the investor) and the economic efficiency (contribution to the nationaleconomy) were measured using spreadsheet models. The models are based onempirical data, gleaned through detailed interview of actual wildlife tourismoperations. The key measures of financial profitability were the annual netcash income, 10 year internal rate of return and the 10 year net present value.The key measures of economic efficiency were the annual contributionto gross and net national income, the 10 year internal rate of return, and the10 year net present value) for each activity.

The primary economic measures used were gross and net national income, asdefined by Gittinger (1982). These are the returns, measured as gross and netvalue added to factors of production owned by nationals. Net nationalincome is gross national income minus annual capital asset depreciation. Ineconomic analysis the economic cost, or benefit, to society, of using or produ-cing a resource was taken as its opportunity cost (the value of its best alterna-tive use). Models were based on financial transactions, but where financialprices differed significantly from opportunity cost, shadow pricing wasapplied.

Shadow pricing criteria were based on those developed within Namibia andBotswana (Barnes, 1994; Ministry of Finance and Development Planning, 1986).Both economies were relatively open, with few price distortions, so that fewshadow pricing adjustments were necessary. Domestic transfers such astaxes, subsidies, land rentals and royalty payments were adjusted for. Pricesfor unskilled and semi-skilled labour were adjusted to reflect distortionsarising from unemployment, and prices for all tradable items were adjusted,to account for excess demand for foreign exchange. Opportunity cost ofcapital was accounted for with the use of appropriate discount rates.

The models described above provide useful information to compare differenttypes of tourism and other activities. The relative efficiencies of these activitiesin terms of resource use and as income earners for different segments of societycan be readily compared using the models.

Some use was made of results from a linear programming allocation analysis,which aimed to determine the most economically efficient spatial allocationbetween wildlife uses in the wildlife sector of Botswana (Barnes, 1998a,2001). Here data from enterprise models, as described above, were used todevelop the linear programming matrix.

70 Journal of Ecotourism

Financial and economic values presented below, are all in Namibia dollars(NAD), 2005 prices. The Namibia dollar is fixed at parity with the SouthAfrican rand (ZAR), and in 2005 was worth USD0.16. Values from earlierstudies were in Namibia dollars and Botswana pula (BWP). Adjustmentswere made, where necessary, for exchange rate, for inflation, and in the caseof aggregates, for growth observed in the tourism sectors studied.

Results and DiscussionThe ‘politics’ of consumptive vs. non-consumptive tourism

Novelli and Humavindu (2005) pointed out the North–South divide as it hasaffected the development of consumptive forms of wildlife use in the develop-ing world. Largely urban societies in the developed north tend to be averse toconsumptive forms of wildlife use for ethical reasons, while predominantlypoor and rural societies in the South tend to have a more utilitarian approach,which can and does involve consumptive uses. The emphasis in these societiesis on meeting the urgent need for growth and employment to satisfy basicneeds.

In Namibia and especially Botswana there has been some pressure fromanimal rights organisations, based in the developed countries, to abolish wild-life uses which involve killing. It is believed that such pressure was the causebehind the moratorium imposed by the Botswana government on lionhunting in 2000. ULG Northumbrian (2001) conducted an analysis of theeffect this ban had on the economic value of Botswana’s trophy huntingtourism sector. They found that 10% of the value would be lost, but pointedout that this loss would take place where there were no other high-value keyspecies such as elephant.

A linear programming allocation analysis of the whole wildlife sector,conducted by Barnes (2001) concluded that a ban on all consumptivewildlife uses would eliminate use values from two-thirds of Botswana’s wild-life estate. This would seriously jeopardise the retention of this land forwildlife, as it is under strong pressure from the expanding traditionalcattle-keeping sector.

The ‘economics’ of consumptive vs. non-consumptive tourism

Table 2 shows some key financial and economic characteristics of typicalexamples of trophy hunting and wildlife viewing tourism enterprises inNamibia and Botswana. The trophy hunting enterprises comprised investmentin a hunting camp (Namibia), and a hunting lodge (Botswana), on land leasedfrom local communities, both incorporating a sufficiently large sustainablequota of trophy animals to fill each hunting season with hunts by foreignhunters. One was set in the arid Namibian Namib desert escarpmentcountry, while the other was set in the semi-arid woodlands associated withthe Okavango Delta in Botswana. The wildlife viewing enterprises involvedinvestment in a 16 bed tented camp (Namibia), and an 18-bed luxury lodge(Botswana), on land leased from local communities which had sufficient wild-life and scenic attributes to enable profitable operations. Again the Namibian

The Other Side of the Ecotourism Coin in Southern Africa 71

Table 2 Financial and economic characteristics of typical trophy hunting and wildlife viewing enterprises in arid and semi-arid settings inNamibia and Botswana (Namibia dollars, 2005 prices, derived from Barnes, 1998; Barnes et al., 2001 and other unpublished data)

Measure Units Trophy hunting Wildlife viewing

Arid (Namibia) Semi-arid (Botswana) Arid (Namibia) Semi-arid (Botswana)

Physical measures

Land used/enterprise km2 3522 1811 190 144

Wildlife stocks/enterprise LSU 767 5660 145 478

Financial measures

Capital requirements/km2 NAD 110 1482 5585 29,991

Turnover/km2 NAD 272 1980 7009 35,681

Financial costs/km2 NAD 225 1603 5649 30,591

Net cash income/km2 NAD 47 382 1359 5088

Ten-year net present value/km2 NAD 82 357 3108 13,619

Ten-year internal rate of return % 15% 16% 16% 15%

Economic measures

Capital requirements/km2 NAD 106 1563 5376 29,468

Gross output/km2 NAD 256 2181 6596 38,550

Economic costs/km2 NAD 134 1377 2652 19,417

Gross value added/km2 NAD 122 799 3944 19,133

Net value added/km2 NAD 108 698 3039 16,034

Ten-year net present value/km2 NAD 535 3487 15,279 96,225

Ten-year internal rate of return % 72% 38% 56% 63%

Net value added/initial capital % 101% 47% 57% 54%

Wages to local community/km2 NAD 14 106 500 116

Rent to local community/km2 NAD 54 301 1099 3930

Capital/employment opportunity NAD 53,327 202,163 113,723 202,062

Employment/1000 km2 Number 2 8 47 146

72

Jou

rna

lof

Ec

oto

urism

example was set in the arid western Namib desert escarpment, while that inBotswana was set in the semi-arid woodlands and wetlands of the Okavangodelta. All the hunting and viewing investment examples in Table 2, involvedjoint ventures agreed with the local communities, whereby the enterprisespaid rentals and royalties, for use of the land and resource.

The results provide some interesting comparative information. A fundamen-tal finding is that trophy hunting requires much larger areas than non-consumptive wildlife viewing. This is primarily because trophy hunting islimited by the sustainable trophy off-take from the wildlife population, whilenon-consumptive tourism enterprises can make productive use of smallerareas (a relatively small area is needed for game drives of a few hours’length). This is reflected in many of the enterprises, financial and economicmeasures. The capital used, the turnover, the net cash income, the gross andnet value added measures, the net present value, the income received by thelocal communities in the form of wages and rents, and the amount of employ-ment created, are all much higher per unit of land for the wildlife viewingactivities. However, the measures of return to investment, the financial andeconomic internal rates of return, the return per unit of initial capital, andthe employment created per unit of capital, are comparable for all the enter-prises. Thus while trophy hunting and non-consumptive wildlife viewingprovide similar returns to capital investment, hunting provides much lowerreturns per unit of land.

Wildlife viewing requires high quality resources to be profitable. The landneeds to have sufficiently spectacular scenery and/or sufficiently dense anddiverse wildlife populations. Hunting does not have the same stringentrequirement, and can be profitable anywhere as long as there is a reasonablydiverse wildlife population. Table 3 shows some results from the linearprogramming analysis in Botswana where the most economically efficient allo-cation of resources between trophy hunting and non-consumptive tourism wasdetermined for the whole wildlife estate. Most capital is efficiently allocated tonon-consumptive wildlife viewing tourism, and this will generate most incomein terms of gross and net value added. However this is efficient only on arelatively small area of high quality land, mostly in the north eastern deltaand river front areas. Trophy hunting is the more efficient use on a much

Table 3 Economically efficient allocation of resources between trophy hunting and wild-life viewing in the wildlife sector, Botswana (Namibia dollars, 2005 prices, derived fromBarnes, 1998, 2001)

Measure Units Trophyhunting

Wildlifeviewing

Total

Resource allocation

Capital required NAD million 70.86 1291.82 1362.68

Land required km2 528.95 196.49 725.44

Expected returns

Gross value added NAD million 36.60 597.25 633.86

Net value added NAD million 31.42 467.22 498.64

The Other Side of the Ecotourism Coin in Southern Africa 73

larger area of lower quality land surrounding this. Here the woodland andKalahari savanna environments have much less value for non-consumptivetourism.

Table 4 shows estimates of the aggregate economic values for the trophyhunting and wildlife viewing tourism industries in Namibia and Botswana.In both countries, non-consumptive tourism contributes far more to thenational income than consumptive tourism. These relative values tends tomirror those evident in Table 3, suggesting that current allocations betweenthe two types of tourism might be more or less economically efficient.

Table 5 shows estimates of the allocation of income (gross value added) tovarious earners in Namibian trophy hunting and wildlife viewing activities.The relative proportions of income earned by central government throughtaxes and licence fees, by high income earners from the modern sector of theeconomy, by low income earners, mostly from the underdeveloped rural

Table 5 Estimated allocation of income (gross value added) generated by earners in thetrophy hunting and wildlife viewing industries in Namibia (Namibia dollars, 2005prices, derived from unpublished data)

Category Trophy hunting Wildlife viewing

Percentage Amount (NADmillion)

Percentage Amount (NADmillion)

Centralgovernment

24% 35.21 27% 421.67

High incomeemployees

9% 13.09 6% 91.64

Low incomeemployees

9% 13.20 13% 197.95

Landholders 35% 52.65 24% 370.85

Owners ofcapital

23% 34.17 30% 456.80

Total 100% 148.32 100% 1538.90

Table 4 Estimates of aggregate economic values for trophy hunting and wildlifeviewing in Namibia and Botswana (Namibia dollars, 2005 prices, derived from Barneset al., 1999; Department of Tourism, 2000; Humavindu & Barnes, 2003; Suich, 2002;Tjingaete et al., 2001; ULG Northumbrian, 2001 and other unpublished data)

Measure Units Trophy hunting Wildlife viewing

Namibia Botswana Namibia Botswana

Grossoutput

NADmillion

316.25 270.11 2699.82 2879.15

Gross valueadded

NADmillion

148.32 99.94 1538.90 1468.37

Net valueadded

NADmillion

129.19 87.35 1338.84 1233.43

74 Journal of Ecotourism

sector, by landholders, who can be local communities, private landowners orstate land custodians, and by the owners of financial capital, mostly in theprivate sector, are estimated. The patterns of allocation between hunting andviewing industries are remarkably similar. The proportions captured by low-income employees and landholders when these are the local communities oncommunal land are of interest. These segments together capture some 40% ofthe income, suggesting that both these industries are contributing significantlytowards poverty reduction, and development.

The environmental implications of consumptive vs. non-consumptivetourism

Non-consumptive wildlife viewing in natural settings, as practised in mostof Namibia and Botswana, by the very nature of its product, is dependenton maintenance of natural habitats and abundant, undisturbed wildlifepopulations. This provides an inherent force to ensure conservation of theenvironment in the areas used for tourism. Landholders who can derive finan-cial benefits from non-consumptive tourism have generally acted on theseincentives and invested heavily in natural habitat and wildlife conservation.

In a few places within Namibia, namely, in parts of Etosha National Park andin the Sossusvlei area of the Namib-Naukluft Park, over-crowding by touristshas emerged as a problem. This is partly due to poor planning and a resultantshortage of suitable alternative routes. On private land, some landholders haveinvested in game stocks, which are alien to the country or local district. In somecases, game animals are kept fenced, on small properties, in densities highenough to require feeding with imported feed. The result is the artificial cre-ation of zoo-like conditions, which have obvious environmental implications.The live game industry can result in the introduction of alien subspecies andresultant genetic pollution in local stocks. However, the impact of these nega-tive influences associated with tourism are small, relative to the conservationincentive described above. They can also be ameliorated through proper,improved planning and management.

Trophy hunting tourism has been criticised as being environmentallydestructive, due to the fact that it involves killing animals and causes some dis-turbance. In reality, the very small off-take quotas for trophies, which com-monly include older animals, and the very selective nature of the hunts,means that these influences are small in the Namibian and Botswana contexts.A much more significant result of trophy hunting has been the incentive itcreates for investment in wildlife stocks. This was illustrated in the results ofBarnes and de Jager (1996), which showed that the financial incentive, drivenlargely by trophy hunting, has resulted in significant increases in wildlifestocks on Namibian private land. This has taken place, notably, in places,which commonly have low potential for non-consumptive tourism.

Another concern expressed by conservationists was related to the selection ofbulls and strongest male specimens for trophy hunting, therefore weakeningthe species’ reproductive potential. However, it has been shown throughanimal population analysis, that the sport and trophy hunting sector is notimpacting negatively on the wildlife regeneration as ‘quotas are kept extremely

The Other Side of the Ecotourism Coin in Southern Africa 75

low, keeping wildlife numbers healthy at all times’ (Novelli & Humavindu,2005: 179).

The social implications of consumptive vs. non-consumptive tourism

The future of both consumptive and non-consumptive tourism rely on thesuccess of the ‘conservancy’ strategic planning and implementation, throughwhich wildlife is strategically managed both for conservation reasons and forlocal economic gain. Both mainstream and niche tourism such as photographicand hunting safaris are increasingly looking at involving the indigenouscommunities especially those located in remote rural areas. For instance, initiat-ives such as the ‘Community Based Tourism’ and the ‘Hunting Guide Training’are aimed at creating opportunity of direct involvement for the indigenouscommunities in both non-consumptive and consumptive form of tourism.

Sport and trophy hunting has created employment for under-privilegedrural communities’ members, offering them jobs as trackers, skinners, cooks,cleaners, drivers and more recently as guides (after the training). Educationhas also been encouraged at various levels, from the simple learning ofthe English language to communicate with the visitors, to the more specifictraining as hunting guides and taxidermists.

There are issues related to the big new injections of cash to communities, asthey capture the rents that previously did not have access to. The effects hereare mostly positive, tending to cancel out the few negative ones. The introduc-tion of wildlife-based tourism on communal land has displaced traditionalincome earning activities to a small extent, but for the most part it has beencomplementary, occupying land with low opportunity cost. No data exists toconfirm that large infusion of new cash, or loss of livestock values have nega-tively impacted within the communities concerned. Diversification of thehousehold income base to include tourism appears to have been a naturaltransformation which has reduced risk, and enhanced perception amongrural people of wildlife non-use values.

Final ConsiderationThe economic results presented above confirm the premise of Barnes (1998b,

2001) and Humavindu and Barnes (2003) that consumptive tourism has a posi-tive and additive economic role to play in the development of tourism sectors insouthern Africa. It also has an important role to play in the national economicdevelopment of southern African countries. Generally, where land is suitablefor both non-consumptive and consumptive tourism, the priority should goto non-consumptive tourism development. However, in large tracts ofNamibia and Botswana, non-consumptive tourism is not profitably possible,and it is here that consumptive tourism finds an economically efficient niche.Without it these areas would have little or no investment in wildlife resources,wildlife conservation and in the creation of opportunities for the localcommunities with strong repercussions on the natural and social environment.

Primarily for this reason, the inclusion of non-consumptive tourism as a landuse in Namibia and Botswana has positively impacted on conservation. It hasan overall beneficial effect on the environment and thus fits well within the

76 Journal of Ecotourism

concept of ecotourism. Further to this, from a demand perspective, by compar-ing ecotourists and sport/trophy hunting tourists encountered during the field-work, it is possible to attempt some generalisation on their psychographiccharacteristics (Table 6).

Their characteristics were predominantly similar, with some exception on thesport/trophy hunters’ side, where knowledge of species, appreciation of strictregulations, training and multiple experiences made the sport/trophy huntingtourists a far more aware and controlled segment, reinforced by legal bound-aries. The general perspective, gained through fieldwork and interviews under-taken within both the tourism segments, highlighted that they can potentiallyrepresent the ‘two sides of the same coin’ with common aims and objectives,but with differences in the nature of their activity–consumptive and non-consumptive. It may be argued that this last point is enough to annul the argu-ment made in this paper. However, the authors believe that where tourismstrongly benefits the natural, economic and social environment, whetherthrough consumptive or non-consumptive practices, it fits well within theconcept of ecotourism and has the potential to contribute to the ever-soughtafter sustainable tourism development.

Correspondence

Any correspondence should be directed to Dr Marina Novelli, Centre forTourism Policy Studies, School of Service Management, University ofBrighton, Darley Road, Eastbourne BN20 7UR, UK (mn19@bton.ac.uk).

Table 6 Psychographic characteristics of ecotourists and sport/trophy hunters (modi-fied from Wearing & Neil, 1999: 121)

Ecotourist Sport/trophy hunter tourist

Possession of an environmental ethics Possession of environmental knowledgeand ethics

Willingness not to degrade the resourcesguided by loose code of conduct

Willingness not to degrade the resourcesguided by strict code of conductreinforced by legal bounds

Focus on ‘intrinsic’ rather than ‘extrinsic’motivations

Focus on ‘intrinsic’ rather than ‘extrinsic’motivations

Biocentric rather than anthropocentric inorientation

Anthropocentric rather than biocentric inorientation (although it might be movedby conservation issues)

Aiming to benefit wildlife and theenvironment

Aiming at benefiting the environmentand local community

Striving for first hand experience with thenatural environment

Striving for multiple experiences withdifferent natural environment

Possessing an expectation of educationand appreciation

Possessing a good level of knowledge ofspecies and expectation of thrill ofexperience ruled by an appreciationof hunting regulation

High cognitive and affective dimensions High cognitive dimension

The Other Side of the Ecotourism Coin in Southern Africa 77

ReferencesAdams, W.M. (2001) Green Development. Environment and Sustainability in the Third World

(2nd edn). London: Routledge.Akama, J.S. (1996) Western environmental values and nature-based tourism in Kenya.

Tourism Management 17 (8), 567–574.Anon (1993) Good shots. The Economist, 17 July 1993, p. 87.Ashley, C. and Barnes, J.I. (1996) Wildlife use for economic gain: The potential for

wildlife to contribute to development in Namibia. DEA Research Discussion Paper,No. 12, Directorate of Environmental Affairs, Ministry of Environment andTourism, Windhoek, Namibia.

Ashley, C. and LaFranchi, C. (1997) Livelihood strategies of rural households in Caprivi:Implications for conservancies and natural resource management. DEA ResearchDiscussion Paper, No. 20, Directorate of Environmental Affairs, Ministry ofEnvironment and Tourism, Windhoek, Namibia.

Baker, J.E. (1997) Development of a model system for touristic hunting revenue collec-tion and allocation. Tourism Management 18 (5) 273–286.

Barnes, J.I. (1994) Suggested criteria for shadow pricing in cost-benefit analysis of pro-jects in Namibia. Unpublished paper, Directorate of Environmental Affairs,Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Windhoek, Namibia.

Barnes, J.I. (1998a) Wildlife economics: A study of direct use values in Botswana’s wild-life sector. PhD thesis, University College, University of London, London, UK.

Barnes, J.I. (1998b) Wildlife conservation and utilisation as complements to agriculturein southern African development. DEA Research Discussion Paper, No. 27,Directorate of Environmental Affairs, Ministry of Environment and Tourism,Windhoek, Namibia.

Barnes, J.I. (2001) Economic returns and allocation of resources in the wildlife sector ofBotswana. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 31 (3 & 4). 141–153.

Barnes, J.I. and de Jager, J.L.V. (1996) Economic and financial incentives for wildlife useon private land in Namibia and the implications for policy. South African Journal ofWildlife Research 26 (2), 37–46.

Barnes, J., Cannon, J. and Morrison, K. (2001) Economic returns to selected land uses inNgamiland, Botswana. Unpublished report, Conservation International, Washington,DC, USA.

Barnes, J.I., MacGregor, J. and Weaver, L.C. (2002) Economic efficiency and incentives forchange with Namibia’s community wildlife use initiatives. World Development 30 (4),667–681.

Barnes, J.I., Schier, C. and van Rooy, G. (1999) Tourists’ willingness to pay for wildlifeviewing and wildlife conservation in Namibia. South African Journal of WildlifeResearch 29 (4), 101–111.

Department of Tourism (2000) A Statistical Review of Tourism 1998–2000. Gaborone,Botswana: Department of Tourism, Ministry of Commerce and Industry.

Duffy, R. (2002) A Trip Too Far: Ecotourism, Politics and Exploitation. London: Earthscan.Gittinger, J.P. (1982) Economic Analysis of Agricultural Projects (2nd edn). Baltimore,

Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.Hofer, D. (2002) The Lion’s Share of the Hunt. Trophy Hunting and Conservation: A Review of

the Eurasian Tourist Hunting Market and Trophy Trade Under CITES. Brussels: TRAFFICEurope Regional Report.

Holden, A. (2003) In need of new environmental ethics for tourism? Annals of TourismResearch 30 (1), 94–108.

Holden, A. (2000) Environment and Tourism. London: Routledge.Humavindu, M.N. (2002) Trophy hunting in the Namibian economy: An assessment.

DEA Working Paper, Directorate of Environmental Affairs, Ministry ofEnvironment and Tourism, Windhoek, Namibia.

Humavindu, M.N. and Barnes, J.I. (2003) Trophy hunting in the Namibian economy: Anassessment. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 33 (2), 65–70.

78 Journal of Ecotourism

Mbaiwa, J.E. (2003) The socio-economic and environmental impacts of tourism develop-ment on the Okavango Delta, north-western Botswana. Journal of Aid Environments 54,447–467.

Ministry of Finance and Development Planning. (1986) Planning Officer’s Manual (128pp.) Gaborone, Botswana: Government Printer.

Mintel (2004) Redefining Ecotourism – International. April 2004.Morrill, W.I. (1995) The tourist safari hunter’s role in conservation. In J.A. Bissonette and

P.R. Krausman (eds) Integrating People and Wildlife for a Sustainable Future. Bethesda,MD: The Wildlife Society.

Nash, R. (1989) The Right of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics. Wisconsin: TheUniversity of Wisconsin Press.

Newsome, D., Moore, S.A. and Dowling, R.K. (2002) Natural Area Tourism. Ecology,Impacts and Management. Clevedon: Channel View Publications.

Novelli, M. and Humavindu, M.N. (2005) Wildlife tourism. Wildlife use vs local gain:Trophy hunting in Namibia. In M. Novelli (ed.) Niche Tourism: Current Issues, Trendand Cases (pp. 171–182). Oxford: Elsevier.

Orams, M.B. (2002) Feeding wildlife as a tourist attraction: A review of issues andimpacts. Tourism Management 23, 281–293.

Reynolds, P.C. and Braithwaite, D. (2001) Towards a conceptual framework for wildlifetourism. Tourism Management 22, 31–42.

Simmons, I.G. (1993) Interpreting Nature: Cultural Constructions of the Environment.London: Routledge.

Smith, M. and Duffy, R. (2003) The Ethics of Tourism Development. London: Routledge.Strauss, D. (2003) Kowas Adventure Safaris, Dordabis, Namibia. Personal communi-

cation, 31 October 2003.Suich, H. (2002) Development of preliminary tourism satellite accounts for Namibia.

Development Southern Africa 19 (1), 105–121.Tjingaete, R., April, B., Swiegers, S. and Amweelo, P. (2001) Tourist Arrival Statistics, 2001.

Windhoek, Namibia: Directorate of Tourism, Ministry of Environment and Tourism.Twyman, C. (2001) Natural resource use and livelihoods in Botswana’s Wildlife

Management Areas. Applied Geography 21, 45–68.ULG Northumbrian (2001) Economic analysis of commercial consumptive use of wild-

life in Botswana. Unpublished report, Botswana Wildlife Management Association(BWMA), Maun, Botswana.

Wearing, S. and Neil, J. (1999) Ecotourism: Impacts, Potentials and Possibilities. Oxford:Butterworth-Heinemann.

The Other Side of the Ecotourism Coin in Southern Africa 79