Without lions tourism will plummet
May 24, 2010
EDITOR—I am concerned about the poisoned lions in Queen Elizabeth National Park reported on May 20. Five lions and about 20 vultures have died. The five lions come from the main pride visited by tourists regularly in the Kasenyi circuit which only numbers about 15-18.
EDITOR—I am concerned about the poisoned lions in Queen Elizabeth National Park reported on May 20. Five lions and about 20 vultures have died. The five lions come from the main pride visited by tourists regularly in the Kasenyi circuit which only numbers about 15-18.
A recent census of the park shows that there are about 140 lions left in Queen Elizabeth Park, down from 205 in 1999. The pride that was frequently sighted at Mweya has been virtually wiped out by poisoning in the past and now the other main tourist group has been reduced to two-thirds of its total size.
Tourism to Uganda is the largest source of foreign currency after funds sent to Uganda by Ugandans living abroad. Most tourists come to Uganda because of the mountain gorillas in Bwindi, but they stay in the country and spend much more money because of the chance of seeing other species in other parks.
A survey by the Wildlife Conservation Society in 2006 showed that the species tourists most wanted to see in Queen Elizabeth was the lion, followed by the leopard, two carnivores that are declining in number across the country.
Tourists were asked whether they would still visit this park if they could not see lions: Thirty-eight percent said they would want park entry fees to be reduced by at least 50% if they could not see lions and most said they would be less likely to want to visit the park. A crude estimate calculated that each lion in Queen Elizabeth brings in $14,800 every year.
However, given that most of the tourism focuses on only two prides of lions in the park the contribution of these tourism is nearer $700,000 each annually. If tourists can’t see some of the key species they want to then the tourism in Uganda is likely to become like that in Rwanda.
Many tourists to Rwanda visit Kenya, Uganda or Tanzania to view the large carnivores, elephants and antelopes and then make a short visit to Rwanda to add in the sighting of gorillas. Uganda’s tourism industry has been recovering well in the past 10 years but if you cannot show tourists large carnivores then they will change their visiting behaviour fairly rapidly.
Rwanda can market mountain gorillas much more easily than Uganda because you can take a two-hour drive on the tarmac road and be with the gorillas after a an hour’s trek. This compares with a 9-11-hour drive to Bwindi from Entebbe on some fairly rough roads in places. So the killing of six lions may not seem much at the moment but could potentially have significant economic repercussions for the country.
There are now about 10-12 lions that tourists can view from Mweya fairly easily. The numbers of lions have also declined in Ishasha in Queen Elizabeth to about 17 individuals of which about 10 are within the tourist circuit.
The future of tourism in Queen Elizabeth rests on these 20 or so lions and so do the livelihoods of the tour operators, hoteliers, as well as the recipients’ of the 20% revenue sharing scheme that UWA provides to local communities around the park. When tourism numbers drop, so do the gate entry receipts and the money available to share with the local community.
The main cause of these poisonings are usually in revenge for killings of livestock by the lions. However, many of the killings of cattle or goats by lions has taken place within the park because people bring their livestock into the park to graze. In addition, if livestock comes in and then leaves it is no great surprise that lions will follow the trail to see what they can capture as cows are pretty easy prey.
There is therefore a need for the districts to be more strict about enforcing the regulations that prevent livestock grazing in the park. Fines for confiscated livestock should be increased to deter people from bringing them into the park.
At present these fines are minimal in comparison to the revenue that lions generate for the country. In contrast, the Rwandan government has recognised the great importance nationally of its tourism industry and has become very savvy at marketing ecotourism in its country.
Uganda could learn a lot from Rwanda in this respect. Under their environment law, if cattle are found in a park they become the property of the park. However, usually the owner is fined 25% of the value of each cow if caught, and the funds are used to pay for the park conservation.
This is because the Rwandan government recognises the damage cattle grazing in the parks could do to their tourism industry. If Uganda was really serious about its tourism industry it would be much more alarmed that these lions have been killed.
Dr A. J. Plumptre
Director Albertine Rift Programme
Wildlife Conservation Society, Kampala
A recent census of the park shows that there are about 140 lions left in Queen Elizabeth Park, down from 205 in 1999. The pride that was frequently sighted at Mweya has been virtually wiped out by poisoning in the past and now the other main tourist group has been reduced to two-thirds of its total size.
Tourism to Uganda is the largest source of foreign currency after funds sent to Uganda by Ugandans living abroad. Most tourists come to Uganda because of the mountain gorillas in Bwindi, but they stay in the country and spend much more money because of the chance of seeing other species in other parks.
A survey by the Wildlife Conservation Society in 2006 showed that the species tourists most wanted to see in Queen Elizabeth was the lion, followed by the leopard, two carnivores that are declining in number across the country.
Tourists were asked whether they would still visit this park if they could not see lions: Thirty-eight percent said they would want park entry fees to be reduced by at least 50% if they could not see lions and most said they would be less likely to want to visit the park. A crude estimate calculated that each lion in Queen Elizabeth brings in $14,800 every year.
However, given that most of the tourism focuses on only two prides of lions in the park the contribution of these tourism is nearer $700,000 each annually. If tourists can’t see some of the key species they want to then the tourism in Uganda is likely to become like that in Rwanda.
Many tourists to Rwanda visit Kenya, Uganda or Tanzania to view the large carnivores, elephants and antelopes and then make a short visit to Rwanda to add in the sighting of gorillas. Uganda’s tourism industry has been recovering well in the past 10 years but if you cannot show tourists large carnivores then they will change their visiting behaviour fairly rapidly.
Rwanda can market mountain gorillas much more easily than Uganda because you can take a two-hour drive on the tarmac road and be with the gorillas after a an hour’s trek. This compares with a 9-11-hour drive to Bwindi from Entebbe on some fairly rough roads in places. So the killing of six lions may not seem much at the moment but could potentially have significant economic repercussions for the country.
There are now about 10-12 lions that tourists can view from Mweya fairly easily. The numbers of lions have also declined in Ishasha in Queen Elizabeth to about 17 individuals of which about 10 are within the tourist circuit.
The future of tourism in Queen Elizabeth rests on these 20 or so lions and so do the livelihoods of the tour operators, hoteliers, as well as the recipients’ of the 20% revenue sharing scheme that UWA provides to local communities around the park. When tourism numbers drop, so do the gate entry receipts and the money available to share with the local community.
The main cause of these poisonings are usually in revenge for killings of livestock by the lions. However, many of the killings of cattle or goats by lions has taken place within the park because people bring their livestock into the park to graze. In addition, if livestock comes in and then leaves it is no great surprise that lions will follow the trail to see what they can capture as cows are pretty easy prey.
There is therefore a need for the districts to be more strict about enforcing the regulations that prevent livestock grazing in the park. Fines for confiscated livestock should be increased to deter people from bringing them into the park.
At present these fines are minimal in comparison to the revenue that lions generate for the country. In contrast, the Rwandan government has recognised the great importance nationally of its tourism industry and has become very savvy at marketing ecotourism in its country.
Uganda could learn a lot from Rwanda in this respect. Under their environment law, if cattle are found in a park they become the property of the park. However, usually the owner is fined 25% of the value of each cow if caught, and the funds are used to pay for the park conservation.
This is because the Rwandan government recognises the damage cattle grazing in the parks could do to their tourism industry. If Uganda was really serious about its tourism industry it would be much more alarmed that these lions have been killed.
Dr A. J. Plumptre
Director Albertine Rift Programme
Wildlife Conservation Society, Kampala