|
Elephants are capable of a major financial and economic contribution
to the wildlife industry in Namibia. This contribution could
come through any or all of the following uses of elephant:
These three uses are not mutually exclusive. A potential
conflict could arise in any given area between the non-consumptive
and the consumptive uses but with judicious planning, zoning
and timing the conflicts can be minimised. Culling is usually
an episodic event lasting for only a few days in the year
and it can be carried out well away from the areas used by
non-hunting tourists. Sport hunting can be done in areas not
used for game viewing or immediately outside the boundaries
of protected areas.
back to top
Non-hunting tourism
For non-hunting tourism, the economic contribution would
come more from expanding the elephant range than from increasing
numbers in the present range.
The marginal contribution of elephants to game-viewing tourism
is difficult to assess. DG (2004, p15) estimated the gross
contribution to GDP attributable to elephants from game-viewing
tourism in Botswana at US$39 million (Pula159 million). Assuming
this income was derived from an area of about 100,000km2,
the gross land use value would be about US$5/hectare and,
if profit margins were 50%, the net return per unit area would
be about US$3.3/hectare. Martin (1993) estimated the net financial
returns from high-quality ecotourism in selected savanna localities
with wildlife populations close to carrying capacity at about
US$25/ha. It would not be unreasonable to attribute 20% of
this value to elephants, i.e. about US$5/ha. However, whilst
non-consumptive tourism in prime localities will give by far
the greatest economic returns possible from wildlife (Barnes
2001), only a limited amount of land in any country is suitable
for high quality game-viewing tourism and these high levels
of financial return are not generally applicable over large
tracts of land.
The value may be even higher in areas which have a local
overabundance of elephant - however, the sustainability of
such a land use is questionable. The initial effect of a high
density of elephant in any park is that it will attract tourists
as has been experienced in the Chobe River riverfront in Botswana
and the Main Camp area in Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe.
However, if overpopulation is allowed to persist, eventually
the large trees will disappear from the park, other animal
species will decline, biodiversity will be affected and the
aesthetic appearance of the park will suffer. In the extreme
case desertification and soil erosion will result and this,
in turn, may lead to a crash in the elephant population. At
this stage the attraction of the protected area for tourism
will be reduced.
In the long term, it is doubtful whether there is any proportionate
increase in tourism with increasing densities of elephants
above some baseline. In southern African savannas, elephants
at a density of 1/km2 may be the threshold above which additional
numbers produce diminishing tourism returns. In areas such
as the arid north-west of Namibia elephant densities will
be far lower and the present population of some 1,000 elephants
in about 60,000km2 of the Kaokoveld and Damaraland may provide
sufficient attraction for tourists to visit the area. The
returns from tourism would probably not increase greatly with
more elephants since there are other attractions beyond 'desert
elephants' which cause tourists to visit the area.
The land use values given for wildife management under non-hunting
tourism may appear high. They are not. I conclude this section
with two examples from Martin (2000a) for a property of about
3,000 hectares near the Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe. Before
the tourism industry in Zimbabwe collapsed for political reasons,
the expected gross return from this property from 24 half-day
visitors paying US$125 each for an eco-tourism experience
was US$876,000 per year or some US$300/hectare.
In addition to normal eco-tourism, an operation using twelve
domesticated elephants belonging to the Elephant Company (Pvt)
Ltd was carried out on the property. Each elephant carried
an average of 3 tourists each paying US$100 every morning
and every afternoon of the year on bush walks lasting about
3 hours using an area of about 500 hectares. The gross return
from this operation was some US$2,600,000 per year or over
US$5,000 per hectare. Taking into account agents' fees, running
costs and capital repayments, the net annual earnings were
in excess of US$0.5 million per year - a land use return of
over US$1,000 per hectare. This is the highest land use value
for wildlife which I have encountered anywhere in Africa and
it is attributable entirely to elephant.
back to top
International sport hunting
Under a high quality trophy hunting regime, elephants could
earn a net income of about US$120,000 for every 1,000 animals
in the population. In the north-east of the country where
elephant densities are reaching a level of 1/km2 the net financial
return should be of the order of US$1.20/ha (N$7.50/ha) which,
when added to the present net returns from existing wildlife
management without elephant hunting, could result in a doubling
of income. The present levels of exploitation of elephant
for sport hunting on communal land in the Caprivi and eastern
Kavango and Otzojondzupa provinces (NNF 2004) are well below
sustainable offtake levels and could be significantly increased
for the benefit of local peoples. In economic terms, the 'net
value added' to land use values by the inclusion of sport
hunting on commercial farms in the north of Namibia is, in
all cases, more than double the value of the cash income (Barnes
& de Jager 1995) and this relationship should hold true for
the enhanced income obtained by adding elephants to the species
mix.
With a trophy male quota of 0.5% of an elephant population
of 1,000 animals in an area of 1,000km2, the net financial
return should be of the order of US$117,000 which is equivalent
to a land use value of US$1.17/ha (N$7.25/ha). If no other
management were being undertaken, this value would remain
true for one year only: an elephant population increasing
at 4.56% would yield an increasing quota of trophies starting
at 5 in the first year and rising to 42 after 50 years.
These values were derived for a typical savanna elephant
population growing at 4.56% per annum. Tests were carried
out on a population with a lower growth rate of around 3%
as might be expected for the north-western elephant population.
The sustainable quota levels do not change markedly - if anything
a slightly higher quota is possible from the slower growing
population (around 0.6% of the total population). This would
imply a quota of 5 elephants for the north-western population
which is estimated as about 800 animals.
As a land use return, a value of US$1.17 does not appear
unduly high. Barnes & de Jager (1995) found net land use values
of US$1.62 for southern sheep/wildlife farms, US$1.08 - US$4.86
for northern cattle/wildlife farms (depending on the size
of the management unit) and US$2.43-US$7.03 for northern non-hunting
tourism operations on private land (also depending on the
size of the management unit). All of these were values earned
without elephants. The addition of trophy elephant hunting
to the first two systems would result in increases in the
net returns from land from 24-108% depending on the system
to which elephant were added. It could also be expected that
there would also be an increase in non-hunting tourism values
if elephants were present.
For the same land categories, Barnes & de Jager (1995) found
that the 'net value added' in economic terms to the land use
values listed above was in all cases more than double the
financial value and it would be reasonable to expect that
this relationship would hold true for the enhanced income
obtained by adding elephants to the species mix.
Data from communal conservancies (NNF 2004) suggest that
levels of exploitation of elephant for sport hunting in the
Caprivi and eastern Kavango and Otzojondzupa provinces are
well below the sustainable offtake levels and could be significantly
increased for the benefit of local peoples.
Elephant are one of the few species for which the value-added
benefits of sport hunting do not exceed the actual commodity
values of the products from the hunted animals - assuming
that markets are operating normally so that the values of
ivory and elephant skin can be fully realised. In the table
on page 89, the commodity value of elephant products from
the animals hunted is slightly higher than the return from
sport hunting (US$1.22/ha versus US$1.17/ha).
back to top
Culling
The distinction needs to be made between 'cropping' and 'culling':
Cropping - a deliberate exploitation of elephants
for their products (ivory, skin and meat) can be practised
so that all age classes in the population are equally harvested
Culling - a management operation designed to reduce
elephant densities for conservation reasons focuses on the
removal of entire elephant herds because this has the greatest
effect in reducing population growth for the least offtake
of animals.
Both practices result in products with financial value.
Were the Ministry to combine elephant sport hunting with
reduction of elephant populations through culling in the State
protected areas in the north-east of the country (a total
of 14,000km2 including the Caprivi Forest Reserve), the expected
income would be some N$13 million which would meet the present
costs of maintaining and managing these areas. If a similar
management regime were practised by the conservancies in the
north-east , the increase in income would also be substantial
and should more than offset the costs which elephant are presently
causing through crop raiding and other damage.
The net income from culling a population of 1,000 elephant
(which would normally grow at a rate of 4.56% per annum) at
a level of 3% to maintain a constant density of 1/km2 would
be about US$60,000 per year.
Male trophy hunting from the same population would yield
an additional US$273,000 per year, giving a total net income
of US$333,000 annually. The land use value of this income
is substantial: US$3.33 (N$20.7) per hectare.
Martin (2005) analysed a comprehensive management programme
under which elephants are culled to keep their numbers constant
and, at the same time, trophy hunting of males takes place.
Elephant calves between the ages of 2-8 years are captured
and sold to approved buyers rather than killed. Because of
the skewing of the population age structure caused by removing
a preponderance of females, the sustainable trophy hunting
quota can be doubled. This does not, however, result in more
hunting trophies than would be obtained from an elephant population
which is managed solely for sport hunting: in the latter case,
because the population continues to increase, trophy quotas
can be increased over the years. When the population is being
culled to keep numbers constant, the sport hunting quota remains
the same in every year.
The required budget for all of the protected areas in the
north-east of Namibia has been estimated as N$26 million (UNDP
2005). If the State protected areas in the north-east which
have elephant populations (a total of 14,097km2 including
the Caprivi Forest Reserve) were managed for optimal financial
returns, the expected income would be some N$29 million. This
would more than meet the entire State conservation costs for
the north-east.
Of course, this is a somewhat simplified calculation. Unless
the State conducted its own elephant hunting safaris, a large
proportion of the income from trophy hunting would accrue
to safari operators. Much of the estimated
income from elephant products would not be immediately realisable
because of CITES. It is assumed that Babwata and the Forest
Reserve elephant populations are at a high enough elephant
density to be managed in this manner. However, given the estimate
for the whole of the north-east in this report (about 14,000
elephants), the management programme could be arranged to
secure the required income sustainably.
Under such a management regime, the increase in income which
would be enjoyed by conservancies in the north-east would
also be substantial. It should more than offset the costs
which elephant are presently causing through crop raiding
and other damage.
|
