The greatest misconception about trophy hunting in Namibia
The trophy hunting industry’s propaganda strategy is put into perspective with years of field research in Namibia to expose the false narrative that trophy hunting empowers local communities.
If you haven’t already, please read and share Sian Sullivan’s article ‘Hunting Africa’: Trophy Hunting, Neocolonialism and Land. Sullivan combined her years of field work in Namibia and what we know of the trophy hunting industry’s propaganda strategy to demonstrate that trophy hunting in Namibia entrenches inequality and negatively affects the rights of local communities.
You should definitely read the article for yourself but I want to highlight what I thought was the most important point. I’ll then pick on yet another sustainable use activist and add my thoughts on their criticism of Sullivan’s article.
I also want to note that Sullivan referenced the trophy hunting industry’s 1996 Strategic Plan for Africa and the industry-funded disinformation campaign that I discovered. This is fantastic and I’m happy that others are taking the information seriously and using their own experience to put the propaganda into perspective.
[You can read more about the strategic plan here and the disinformation campaign here.]
The greatest misconception about trophy hunting in Namibia is that it empowers local communities
The most important point of Sullivan’s article is, by far, the acknowledgement that trophy hunting has hindered efforts to reduce inequality in Namibia. The narrative Namibian trophy hunting empowers local communities is not grounded in reality.
“From the UK to Namibia, trophy hunting consolidates elite recreational access to land (as “hunting grounds”) and labour, whilst removing rights of and stewardship by local peoples. Quite apart from animal welfare concerns and other ethical critiques, hunting business begs forensic analysis for how it shores up inequalities, alienates people from land, diminishes some kinds of productive autonomy, and concentrates ‘wildlife’ in securitized landscape units requiring militarised management.”
Namibia is one of the most unequal countries in the world. Decades of trophy hunting and ‘community-based’ programs have not resolved the inequality. In actuality, most of the financial benefits and power within Namibia’s trophy hunting industry are allocated to the previously advantaged, white people.
The previously disadvantaged, black people, receive very little of trophy hunting’s spoils and are restricted from accessing private land and practicing subsistence hunting. Sustainable use in Namibia does not mean that local communities have the right to ‘use’ their resources. It means the exact opposite – local communities are restricted from ‘using’ their resources so that they can be ‘used’ by wealthy elites.
Sullivan alluded to this point in a Twitter thread about her article, stating that when she “first encountered 'sus use' discourse in the context of CBNRM in the 90s I thought it would be about supporting communities' own direct use of 'resources' & strengthening existing management skills & local knowledge.” She added, “Silly me.”
We shouldn’t blame anyone for believing the sustainable use narrative when it was first invented. But we should criticize those that continue to believe it in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence.
Sustainable use activist’s critique of Sullivan’s article deserves attention
The Twitter account Conservation Namibia features tweets from Gail Thomson and often portrays trophy hunting in a positive light. Thomson raised a critique of Sullivan’s article and shared a particular opinion that deserves attention.
Thomson argued that Sullivan’s “purposes would have been better served without weaving SCI into the work of conservation orgs and conservancies” and that Safari Club International “have their own priorities, and conservation orgs have their own priorities. Sometimes those things overlap. Suggesting that there is some sort of collusion between the two requires more evidence than pointing out a few superficial similarities.”
Firstly, if you don’t want others to ‘weave’ a trophy hunting organization into the work of other conservation organizations, you should probably stop promoting trophy hunting as a conservation tool. Secondly, Safari Club International markets itself as a conservation organization, even saying that they are a “defender of the freedom to hunt and supporter of wildlife conservation worldwide.”
Secondly, there is much more evidence of collusion between Safari Club International and other conservation organizations than “a few superficial similarities.” For instance, take Safari Club International’s connections to IUCN SULi (an organization that the sustainable use community would not hesitate to deem a conservation organization).
The Safari Club International foundation’s funding of IUCN SULi Vice Chair Shane Mahoney’s private company’s initiative which is “designed to protect and preserve our freedom to hunt today and in the future” is certainly more than a superficial similarity.
Thomson also told Sullivan, “I don’t have an issue with free markets and I don’t see forced redistribution of wealth as a realistic possibility.”
Not having an issue with free markets is like not having an issue with unicorns. Free markets, like unicorns, don’t actually exist.
But while free markets don’t exist, free market ideologues do.
Free market ideologues pretend that there is a natural law of supply and demand to prevent governments from regulating wealthy elites and their anti-environmental corporations. There is a reason why Monbiot rightly espouses such vitriol for free market think tanks.
We should all have an issue with free market ideologues.
It’s interesting that Thomson has no issue with something that does not exist and has a cult following that benefits wealthy elites (free markets), yet does not see something that could exist and would harm wealthy elites as a possibility (forced redistribution of wealth).
But there is no law of nature that says forced redistribution of wealth is impossible.
I personally don’t see voluntary redistribution of wealth as a possibility, but forced redistribution of wealth is certainly a possibility. Although it needs to be complimented with systemic changes that prevent elites from obtaining an unequal amount of wealth in the first place.
Creating a more equal world is possible. People just have to care enough to fight for it instead of bootlicking wealthy elites.
Thank you again for your insightful sharing of the 'reality' of what is happening behind smoke-screens.