African wildlife conservation and the evolution of hunting institutions

Abstract

Hunting regulation presents a significant challenge for contemporary global conservation governance. Motivated by various incentives, hunters may act legally or illegally, for or against the interests of conservation. Hunter incentives are shaped by the interactions between unevenly evolving formal and informal institutions, embedded in socio-ecological systems. To work effectively for conservation, regulatory interventions must take these evolving institutional interactions into account. Drawing on analytical tools from evolutionary institutional economics, this article examines the trajectory of African hunting regulation and its consequences. Concepts of institutional dynamics, fit, scale, and interplay are applied to case studies of rhinoceros and lion hunting to highlight issues of significance to conservation outcomes. These include important links between different forms of hunting and dynamic interplay with institutions of trade. The case studies reveal that inappropriate formal regulatory approaches may be undermined by adaptive informal market responses. Poorly regulated hunting may lead to calls for stricter regulations or bans, but such legal restrictions may in turn perversely lead to more intensified and organised illegal hunting activity, further undermining conservation objectives. I conclude by offering insights and recommendations to guide more effective future regulatory interventions and priorities for further research. Specifically, I advocate approaches that move beyond simplistic regulatory interventions toward more complex, but supportive, institutional arrangements that align formal and informal institutions through inclusive stakeholder engagement.

Does money “buy” tolerance toward damage‐causing wildlife?

“…However, policies change dynamically and can differ substantially between countries, particularly in relation to the extent of institutional devolution and benefit sharing between communities and national beneficiaries (Nelson & Agrawal, 2008; Muchapondwa & Stage, 2015: Galvin, Beeton, & Luizza, 2018). Notwithstanding such differences, fundamental to all policies is a utilitarian rationale—that is, communities receive monetary benefits from wildlife utilization in order to “buy” support for wildlife conservation and offset the costs of living with wildlife (Ashley & Barnes, 1996; Child, 2003; Cretois, Linnell, Kaltenborn, & Trouwborst, 2019; Jones & Murphree, 2001; Muchapondwa & Stage, 2015; t'Sas‐Rolfes, 2017; Virtanen, 2003). Indeed, economic incentives have increasingly gained prominence in environmental policy (Rode, Gómez‐Baggethun, & Krause, 2015), and CBNRM is no exception.…”

Born captive: A survey of the lion breeding, keeping and hunting industries in South Africa

“…The African lion is currently the only big cat of the genus Panthera for which international commercial trade is legal under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) [1]. In response to emerging market demands for lion products, including viewing tourism, cub petting, trophy hunts and body parts, entrepreneurs in South Africa have developed a substantial commercial captive lion breeding industry, reaching a scale similar to that of captive tiger breeding operations in China [2,3]. As with China’s so-called ‘tiger farms’, the role of such commercial breeding operations is debated, with critics arguing that their presence has no conservation value [4] and, at least in the case of tigers, may even constitute a threat to wild populations [5].…”

Hunting Tourism as a Possible Development Tool in Protected Areas of Extremadura, Spain

“…However, it is as well to specify that it is absolutely necessary to carry out suitable management and planning to avoid possible negative effects [25]. At the same time it is important for there to be regulations adapted to each territory so as not to trigger problems in environmental conservation [22,26], as regarding hunting one should not generalize and there are no formulae which cater to all territories and species. In this sense some authors consider that a surfeit of restrictions may lead to an increase in illegal hunting, the loss of numerous economic opportunities, and may even affect the conservation of spaces [22,26] by endangering habitats and biodiversity itself [27,28].…”

“…On the other hand, there is an opposing current against recreational hunting on the grounds that it is not ethical to kill animals for pleasure. This latter current was given a considerable boost by the death of the lion Cecil as this event triggered a much more profound debate on a world scale and encouraged the setting in motion of more restrictive policies on recreational hunting [26].…”