What's the Value of Biodiversity?

[Flutterby]

And the big five do sell

Of course, at the current rate of poaching, we might only have the Big 4!!

[Toko]

Here a different view on Saayman's survey:

If it Stays it Pays: The Real Commercial Value of the Big Five

If it Stays it Pays: The Real Commercial Value of the Big Five
by Sean Messham on December 3, 2012


I can recall countless ‘debates’ with people about the pros and cons of hunting the Big Five and the role it plays in South African conservation.My emotional pleas, citing moral responsibility to nature and our duty to future generations, were shot down and deflected with economic equations that reduced Africa’s iconic heritage to mere trophies and consumable commodities.

Well, not any more, thanks to Prof. Melville Saayman of North-West University. His recent report shows that the potential non-consumable value of the Big Five is not to be sneezed at, and suggests that, in the longer term, the non-consumable value of the Big Five can exceed their consumable value. In other words, these iconic animals are worth more alive than dead.

Oh yes, reload!

Saayman’s study, conducted in South Africa’s Kruger National Park, shows that tourists are prepared to pay more than R3,500 to see the Big Five (leopard, lion, rhino, elephant and buffalo).

His research was carried out at the Olifants, Letaba, Mopani and Punda Maria rest camps, where random selections of visitors were asked to complete a questionnaire. The findings indicated that visitors are prepared to pay R1,136 to see a leopard, R1,007 for a lion, R753 for a rhino, R658 for an elephant and R498 for a buffalo.

So, the report claims, ‘if the average lifespan of a leopard is 15 years and [it] is viewed by 5,000 tourists per year, the leopard’s value is R85,232,250 for the park.’ Compare this with R189,000 ($ 21,000), the going rate for a licence to shoot a leopard as a trophy, and you begin to get Saayman’s drift.[1]

The Kruger National Park plays a huge role in conservation and job employment in South Africa as it attracts more ‘than a million visitors a year and supports [between] 300,000 and 600,000 people living in the park’s surrounding areas.’

The massive social and economic benefits of Kruger are undisputed and the positive conclusions of Saayman’s report only add to the long-term value of this national treasure. This has to be seen as encouraging, not only for Kruger but for many other public and privately own conservation areas as well.

Africa’s greatest challenge in attaining political stability and prosperity is to stimulate its national economies and to create jobs. Globally, world tourism is the greatest employer, yet our continent has less than five per cent of the world travel market. Surely claiming a larger share of this market will provide a massive economic opportunity for Africa? And surely at the core of this opportunity lies Africa’s unique selling point – its great pull as a wildlife safari destination. And the animals are the true magnetic force – alive they can attract visitors time after time, year after year. So, if the creature stays, people certainly will pay to see them and will keep on doing so.

But easy on the trigger my pro-hunting lobbyist, I can see your armour-piercing counter-arguments ricocheting into this post. Please don’t miss the mark here. I’m not suggesting that this report dismisses all claims by the economically powerful hunting industry and the role it might play in conservation. The subject is far more complex and multi-layered than one can tease out in a single post.

What the report does argue is that a live animal can, over time, deliver an annuity income for conservation simply by being alive for tourists to see and admire.

Finally I have some substance to back up my long-held argument and emotional pleas. So let’s turn the phrase ‘if it pays, its stays’ on its head and rather emphasise that ‘if it stays, it pays’.

NOTE: This post is based on the press release ‘The commercial value of the Big Five’.

[Richprins]

The massive social and economic benefits of Kruger are undisputed and the positive conclusions of Saayman’s report only add to the long-term value of this national treasure.

the SanParks CEO disagrees, and says Kruger is under desperate threat from neighboring communities who say the receive no benefit from it...

The positive conclusions of the report (not the most scientific, representative or comprehensive one in history, IMO) will only add to the justification of further upscale developments in Kruger. That is all it was designed to do, end of story!

[Lisbeth]

Africa’s greatest challenge in attaining political stability and prosperity is to stimulate its national economies and to create jobs. Globally, world tourism is the greatest employer, yet our continent has less than five per cent of the world travel market. Surely claiming a larger share of this market will provide a massive economic opportunity for Africa? And surely at the core of this opportunity lies Africa’s unique selling point – its great pull as a wildlife safari destination. And the animals are the true magnetic force – alive they can attract visitors time after time, year after year. So, if the creature stays, people certainly will pay to see them and will keep on doing so.

This is certainly one of the aces that Africa has and that is exactly what attracts the tourists! Not bicycle/canoe races and not new luxury accommodations; there are already enough of those. The tourists want to see the bush as it was "Once upon a time" with the animals freely roaming and not a kind of ZOO where you can see whatever you want any time you want.

[Toko]

Why SA needs rhino tourism

April 28 2014 at 09:00am

Pretoria - The popularity of rhinos as a tourist attraction is on the increase making their value in the tourism industry even greater, says Professor Melville Saayman.

A director of Trees (Tourism Research, Economics, Environment and Society) at North-West University, Saayman expressed his opinion after a study he and his team completed at Kruger National Park to determine whether tourists’ desire to see rhinos, in relation to other animals that make the Big Five had changed over the past three years.

“In a similar study in 2011, 26.6 percent of respondents said they were willing to pay to see rhinos. This increased to 36.9 percent in 2013. The non-consumptive value of rhino for Kruger National Park has increased from R39.5-million to R112.4m.

“Rhinos are the only species of the Big Five to become more popular,” he said.

Last year, more than a thousand rhinos were killed by poachers and this year 277 have been killed for their horns.

Saayman thinks the growing endangered status of rhinos is contributing to the surge in interest.

It also emphasises the value of the nearly 18 000 rhinos remaining.

Saayman’s study shows that the viewing value of the Big Five accounts for approximately R500 000 of the Kruger National Park’s R2-billion revenue. Rhinos represent nearly R112 500 00 of this.

Although the Department of Environmental Affairs will sign a Memorandum of Understanding with its Mozambican counterpart this week to curb rhino poaching by authorising local rangers to pursue poachers across the border, Saayman feels the efforts are not enough.

“I do not think Mozambique has the capacity to curb poaching.”



Saayman says the government must strengthen its stance against poachers to preserve the species.

“Our penalties for poachers are far too light. It does not serve as a deterrent. We have to follow the Kenyan example, where persons caught with ivory or rhino horn are fined $230 000 (R24-million) or sentenced to life in prison; and in some cases both. Maybe it's time to re-erect the fence between South Africa and its neighbours. Many poachers are foot soldiers from neighbouring countries who come here to hunt rhinos.” - Pretoria News

[H. erectus]

A good speaker he was Prof. Saayman,...he managed to
perk up the rather somber atmosphere at that stage,..

A down to earth person.

[Toko]

Might be, but if a species must a have a high value for the tourism industry, to be worthwile for saving, it's a rather bleak perspective for ecosystems More and more wildlife and nature are considered only useful draw cards to attract tourists and increase income. So we can wipe out any not iconic species and ecosystems if they don't contribute to GDP

[H. erectus]

Yah OK Toks I understand your urgument, then the
animal kingdom should also fend for themselves,...

Currently they(animal kingdom), are so dependant,...

Theoretically yes,.. you are right,....!!

That is why other economist speakers, at the conference
itterated that the value on horn, in the far east, needs
to be removed from the equation, however this will take
time,...

There were quite a few speakers with economical background,..

[H. erectus]

Rhino horn is not the one and only lucrative aphrodisiac,..

Elephant tusk,
Pangolin,
Lion bones,..

and so on and so forth,...
Do you all out there realise how simple it is for some idiot
to arouse a hype,....

Let's face it, be true to self, so often we find ourselfs boxed
in a situation leaving us but little choise,.....

We turn and look up above for mother nature will provide,...

Those in the far east are doing exactly the same, like us,..

with little resource at hand,..

[Dewi]

Although not quite about the value of Rhino as a species, this video exemplifies why we need to save species and stop putting monetary values on certain species. Biodiversity is priceless.