The Zambian Wildlife Ranching Industry: Scale, Associated Benefits, and Limitations Affecting Its Development

Abstract

The number and area of wildlife ranches in Zambia increased from 30 and 1,420 km2 in 1997 to 177 and ∼6,000 km2 by 2012. Wild ungulate populations on wildlife ranches increased from 21,000 individuals in 1997 to ∼91,000 in 2012, while those in state protected areas declined steeply. Wildlife ranching and crocodile farming have a turnover of ∼USD15.7 million per annum, compared to USD16 million from the public game management areas which encompass an area 29 times larger. The wildlife ranching industry employs 1,200 people (excluding jobs created in support industries), with a further ∼1,000 individuals employed through crocodile farming. Wildlife ranches generate significant quantities of meat (295,000 kg/annum), of which 30,000 kg of meat accrues to local communities and 36,000 kg to staff. Projected economic returns from wildlife ranching ventures are high, with an estimated 20-year economic rate of return of 28%, indicating a strong case for government support for the sector. There is enormous scope for wildlife ranching in Zambia due to the availability of land, high diversity of wildlife and low potential for commercial livestock production. However, the Zambian wildlife ranching industry is small and following completion of field work for this study, there was evidence of a significant proportion of ranchers dropping out. The industry is performing poorly, due to inter alia: rampant commercial bushmeat poaching; failure of government to allocate outright ownership of wildlife to landowners; bureaucratic hurdles; perceived historical lack of support from the Zambia Wildlife Authority and government; a lack of a clear policy on wildlife ranching; and a ban on hunting on unfenced lands including game ranches. For the wildlife ranching industry to develop, these limitations need to be addressed decisively. These findings are likely to apply to other savanna countries with large areas of marginal land potentially suited to wildlife ranching.

Underperformance of African Protected Area Networks and the Case for New Conservation Models: Insights from Zambia

“…The diversity of wild ungulates is also lower in GMAs (4.7±0.58 species) and national parks (7.2±0.9 species) than on extensive unfenced game ranches 11.1±0.86 species) (Figure S1b) [19]. The higher biomass and diversity on private ranches is likely to be primarily due to the availability of greater resources for anti-poaching than in state protected areas.…”

“…By contrast, ∼63,000 ungulates occur on <6,000 km 2 of game ranches in Zambia [19]. Country-level population data for wildlife in other countries are scarce, but to provide a coarse comparisons, 1.8–2.8 million wild ungulates occur on 287,000 km 2 of Namibian wildlife ranches ∼841,000 ungulates occurred on 27,000 km 2 of Zimbabwean game ranches prior to the land seizures [20] and ∼215,000 ungulates occur in the ∼20,000 km 2 Kruger National Park in South Africa [21], [22].…”

“…Within Zambia, gross earnings per km 2 from trophy hunting in GMAs (USD97/km 2 ) are markedly lower than on extensive game ranches (USD878±226) (F Ratio 15.9, d.f. = 1, p<0.001) [19]. Contributing to the low earnings from hunting in Zambia in 2012 was the fact that 19 leases for hunting concessions ended prior to the end of the hunting season, and resident hunting was halted by the Zambian government (ZAWA unpublished data).…”

Property rights regimes, resource utilisation and biodiversity conservation in Eastern and Southern Africa

“…In South Africa, game ranching developed rapidly and contributed significantly, ecologically and to local and national economies (Van der Waal and Dekker, 2000;Child, 2009b). In Zambia, game ranching industry has alsogrownrapidlysince1980s, contributing to biodiversity conservation, job creation and economies (Lindsey et al, 2013). However, implications of the contemporary global pressure created by "land rush" (Cotula and Polack, 2012) regarding resource property rights regimes needs to be further studied.…”

“…Moyo, 2000;Grossman and Holden, 2009;Child, 2009b;Lindsey et al, 2013. derive benefits from them (Swatuk, 2005). In order to address these biodiversity conservation challenges, various models of institutional arrangements have been piloted in Eastern and Southern region (Lund and Treue, 2008;Child, 2009a) and their effectiveness are mostly yet to be assessed.…”