See it, save it?

Wildlife tourism can be a powerful ally in protecting nature - but it can also harm it. We weigh up the pros and cons.

- PAUL BLOOMFIELD

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.

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?

The question of whether wildlife travel is, on balance, good for wildlife is a complex one – and there’s no simple answer.