I smelled Lady Liuwa before I saw her. To be more accurate, I smelled the remnants of her dinner – a wildebeest reduced to a fly-blown pile of flesh, fur, horns and hooves.
From the safety of my four-wheel drive, my gaze met those of the culprits lounging in the shade of a snake bean tree: one, two, three pairs of amber leonine eyes.
Any such sighting is precious. Africa’s lions now number probably fewer than 25,000, hit by loss of habitat and prey, human-wildlife conflict and other threats. But in Liuwa Plain National Park back in 2012, when I enjoyed that aromatic encounter, it was even more remarkable. For many years the female dubbed Lady Liuwa had been alone. Then, after non-profit conservation organisation African Parks took on management two decades ago, lions were translocated in, boosting numbers to 24.
- Is flying ever ethical? The murky truth about carbon offsetting
- Huge “first-of-its-kind” rewilding project to bring back lost species and create ecotourism paradise in South Africa
- 'So much for protecting Arctic wildlife' – new Norwegian cruise restrictions are hypocritical, says Mark Carwardine
The rise of wildlife tourism
Another population is gradually swelling in Liuwa: tourists. That’s part of the economic equation calculated by African Parks, which currently manages 22 protected areas in 12 countries: multiply tourism to provide sustainable funding for large-scale conservation work.
Of course, the sums of wildlife travel aren’t as simple as more tourists equals happier nature. How much did my visit really contribute to the conservation of Lady Liuwa and her habitat – and was that outweighed by carbon emissions from my flights? Did my presence disturb the animals’ natural behaviour more than it reduced the threat of poaching or benefited local communities?
Is wildlife tourism good for wildlife?
The question of whether wildlife travel is, on balance, good for wildlife is a complex one – and there’s no simple answer.
In the plus column, the World Travel & Tourism Council estimated in 2019 that wildlife tourism contributes $343.6 billion to global GDP. Minus: tourism is responsible for 8% of global carbon emissions driving climate change, which is already having an impact on biodiversity. Without urgent and drastic emission cuts, one-third of animal species could be lost by 2070.
The impact of wildlife tourism
Reaching the most popular wildlife-watching destinations – sub-Saharan Africa, the Great Barrier Reef, the Galápagos, India’s tiger reserves – means flying. All aspects considered, your trip to Antarctica could emit nearly 5.5 tonnes of CO2 – more than the average person’s annual total.
Disturbance of animals is another problem, as anyone who’s been caught up in a ‘lion-jam’ at a predator’s kill can attest. Studies have shown that the presence of tourists can cause nesting seabirds to abandon their nests, or disrupt New Zealand sealion mothers feeding their young. Dolphins and whales may change communication patterns or avoid critical feeding areas when approached by boats (find out the extraordinary way whales breastfeed).
Other problems sometimes caused by tourism include over-exploitation of resources such as water; the introduction or dispersal of non-native animals, plants and diseases; inappropriate or excessive infrastructure development fragmenting habitats; and pollution of various kinds from cruises, accommodation and related services.
Individual travellers can have negative impacts, too: snorkellers can damage coral reefs or leave slicks of sunscreen that harm marine life, for example.
Is ecotourism the solution?
Clearly, wildlife travel isn't without its drawbacks. But many believe it can play a key role in protecting and restoring nature.
A 2010 policy statement by WWF-UK states that it “encourages tourism that involves taking fewer flights… [but also] recognises that international tourism can, where appropriately managed and monitored, play an important role in poverty alleviation, cultural understanding and biodiversity conservation…” while noting that: “WWF-UK confronts a number of dilemmas – not least the fact that travel brings both benefits and threats to wildlife conservation.”
The world’s biodiversity is, we know, in trouble. According to the IUCN, more than 45,300 species are threatened with extinction – 28% of all those assessed. To what extent can tourism help reverse rather than contribute to biodiversity collapse?
Interestingly, climate change doesn’t top the list of the five most impactful direct drivers of biodiversity loss in terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, according to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. In order, these are: land-use change (deforestation and other habitat loss); direct exploitation of organisms (hunting, logging, fishing, over-harvesting); climate change; pollution; and invasive alien species.
“The biggest thing we can do to combat land-use change – and, therefore, biodiversity loss – is to address the economic incentives and livelihoods of local people,” says Justin Francis, founder of Responsible Travel. “In many places, they’re making choices between exploitation of land for other uses – agriculture or housing or development – versus a model based around protecting and sustaining those ecosystems for tourism.” In other words, tourism can help underwrite both official and community-led efforts to protect nature.
How? Well, entrance fees to protected areas generate an estimated $142 million in 14 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, according to a 2017 report. In South Africa, for example, tourism provides about 80% of South African National Parks’ operating budget.
As discussed, African Parks is developing sustainable tourism, generating revenue – $34.3m in the five years to 2023 – that can be invested in management of protected areas and in local communities. “Currently, wildlife tourism contributes 10% of operational expenditure,” says Dave Wilson, African Parks’ head of commercial development. “Our ambition is to grow it to at least 25% in the next 5 to 10 years.”
It’s a recurring theme around the world. Tourism is often the biggest contributor to protected-area management costs, especially in countries where other stable sources of funding are unavailable. And that can encourage authorities to improve protection.
In the Galápagos, for instance, marine-based tourism is worth more than $178 million per year. Thanks to spending by divers and other tourists, just one shark here is worth an estimated $5.4 million over its lifetime. Recognising this, the government introduced no-fishing zones in 2016.
In a virtuous circle, protecting wildlife-rich destinations is also an important weapon in the fight against climate change, because the world’s marine and terrestrial ecosystems absorb around 50% of anthropogenic carbon.
“Many places holding the most intact biodiversity also represent some of the richest carbon sinks: forests, grasslands, savanna, marine habitats and ecosystems, wetlands and peat,” observes Francis. “So when we travel, we emit carbon – but we also sequester carbon if we’re helping create the economic imperative to protect and sustain those carbon sinks. That lion’s grassland home is sequestering carbon; so is the rainforest where you’re watching macaws.”
Individual species can benefit, too. In the 1980s, the mountain gorilla looked doomed to extinction. Today, the fee for a permit to visit one of the 12 habituated gorilla families in Rwanda’s Volcanoes National Park helps to fund species-directed conservation and gorilla numbers have been boosted as a result.
It’s not a cure-all panacea, of course. A 2016 study examining the impact of ecotourism on nine threatened species suggests that it may benefit some, such as cheetahs and African wild dogs, but does not help New Zealand sealions, and can protect orangutans only if it generates more revenue than commercial logging.
That’s a key point: if wildlife has real economic value to people, it can be a powerful incentive to curb overexploitation and, potentially, can help mitigate human-wildlife conflict.
Across African Parks’ sites, freelance guides earned more than $210,000 in 2023, and 97% of the more than 5,200 full-time employees are nationals of the countries in which they work. “Today, 15 years after African Parks partnered with the Rwandan government to manage Akagera National Park, it’s around 95% self-funding, and more than 50% of the visitors are local Rwandans,” reports Dave Wilson from African Parks. “Multiple local artisanal and small businesses have launched around the parks, cooperatives are thriving, and an active constituency for conservation has been created.”
Similar impacts can be seen in Zambia. “Take South Luangwa National Park, the birthplace of walking safaris,” says Chris Breen, managing director of Wildlife Worldwide. “The nearest town, Mfuwe, is a growing and thriving community – and there is no longer large-scale elephant poaching. Wildlife is seen as the bank account of the individuals who live and work and bring up their families there, so they’re very, very protective of it.”
Meanwhile, in Cambodia, Sam Veasna Conservation Tours – an NGO founded in memory of a pioneering local conservationist – provides an alternative sustainable livelihood from ecotourism for communities at sites prioritised for conservation. In return for income and employment, villagers sign no-hunting and land-use agreements.
Is ecotourism really sustainable?
Concerns have been raised about over-reliance on tourism for conservation funding, with potentially damaging consequences for wildlife if the tourism tap is suddenly turned off – as it was during the recent pandemic.
“When the Covid pandemic hit, people feared that the wildlife in South Luangwa National Park would just get eaten,” says Chris McIntyre, managing director of Expert Africa. “But it didn’t – because the vast majority of the people in Mfuwe and around said, ‘Tourism is going to come back, and the wildlife is our income when it does come back. So we’re going to continue to respect and protect that wildlife.’”
Safaris can also help curb poaching, partly because ecotourism can provide an alternative income, and because tourism revenue can help fund anti-poaching initiatives such as round-the-clock protection of the last two surviving northern white rhino in Ol Pejeta Conservancy, Kenya. The presence of safari-goers, and the guides and scouts that often accompany them, may also deter poachers and act as early warning systems for authorities.
Whether your holiday has a net positive impact might depend on which trip you choose. Accommodation providers and tour operators are increasingly investing in sustainable practices, including nature conservation and regeneration. And despite widespread greenwashing, there are signs that companies are making serious efforts. One pioneering organisation is The Long Run, which connects sustainable tourism and conservation “change-makers” worldwide. Together they own or manage more than 5,000km2 of land, and invested $9,442,709 into nature conservation and regeneration in 2023.
Of course, this can be effective only in collaboration with local communities. Some initiatives – particularly the designation of protected areas – have faced accusations of ‘fortress conservation’, in some cases forcing communities off land they occupied. Ensuring such people are treated fairly, and have a stake in conservation, is crucial.
“When we look at the world’s last biodiversity, and at the last standing carbon – forests, essentially – it is extraordinary how much of that land is managed or owned by indigenous communities,” says Francis from Responsible Travel. According to the World Bank, about 36% of remaining intact forests are on indigenous peoples’ lands, and these communities safeguard 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity. “So, from a climate change and biodiversity perspective, we must support them.”
Totting up the figures, it’s clear wildlife tourism can provide economic incentives and funding for protecting nature – but not every trip has the same value in terms of sustainability, conservation and community benefits.
We can all reflect on the impacts of our holidays and how frequently we take flights. Indeed, merely thinking about these issues is the first step to travelling in a way that maximises the benefits and minimises the negative impacts on the wildlife and habitats we visit and love.
Discover more travel content