A recent report and poll reveal serious flaws in the UK government’s continued push to ban the importation of hunting trophies, particularly from African countries. The report shows how the proposed ban contradicts international agreements to which the UK is party, while the poll results reveal a shocking lack of empathy for African people among the anti-hunting UK public.

Although the first version of a Bill to prohibit the importation of hunting trophies into the UK failed due to lack of support in the House of Lords, it was popular among Members of Parliament (MPs) from both of the dominant political parties. This is borne out by the inclusion of trophy import bans in the now-ruling Labour Party’s manifesto and the introduction of a new Bill with the same aim by a Conservative Party MP. Though Labour’s manifesto committed to ban “the import of hunting trophies” in general, the new Bill, like previous versions, focuses on banning trophy imports from endangered species.

One of us (Francis Vorhies) produced a report for the Institute of Economic Affairs that examines the rationale for the first Bill, which applies to the newest Bill that seeks to achieve the same thing. Around the same time, but entirely independently, Resource Africa (headed by Shylock Muyengwa) used funding from Jamma International to commission Savanta to conduct an opinion poll of 4,002 UK citizens relating to trophy hunting.

When comparing our results, we found some striking similarities between the views of UK politicians and their public, which are cause for concern in Africa. We share some of our insights here.

UK politicians and the public have been misled

One of the reasons initially given for the proposed ban is the conservation of endangered species, suggesting that the MPs who support this Bill believe that trophy hunting is a significant threat to hunted species. Similarly, 75% of poll respondents believed that trophy hunting poses a significant threat to endangered species, while a further 15% believed that it poses a minor threat. Only 3.5% thought that it poses no threat.

This widely held belief among politicians and the public is unsupported by conservation science. A recent study that examined the threats posed to hunted endangered animal species revealed that legal, regulated trophy hunting was not a significant threat to any of them. Habitat loss, poaching, and killing related to human-wildlife conflict are real threats recorded by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), many of which can actually be reduced by controlled hunting. 

The disconnect between popular perceptions and scientific evidence may be due to celebrity-backed media campaigns run by animal rights organisations, which are less concerned about species conservation than the rights of individual animals to live free from human exploitation. The narratives used in these campaigns mix the two issues of animal rights and conservation, including false claims that hunting is pushing these species “further towards extinction” to support their narratives and encourage donations to their cause. 

African livelihoods and government policies are overlooked 

One of the key arguments in the IEA report is that the UK is Party to several international conventions that provide mechanisms for governments to regulate the use and trade of wildlife in a way that does not lead to extinction. 

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) provides for exporting Parties to issue permits for hunts that were carried out legally and in a manner that is not detrimental to the species in question. For especially threatened species on CITES Appendix I, importing governments issue import permits based on evidence that the purpose of the import was not detrimental to the species and that the person importing the trophy is not doing so for primarily commercial purposes (e.g., for resale).

These processes show a level of respect and trust between different CITES Parties. Each one is allowed to make its own laws and assessments about whether and under what circumstances a particular animal can be hunted. The process recognises that exporting countries want to maintain sustainable populations of hunted species, which makes conservation and economic sense. 

Another key multilateral agreement related to conservation and hunting is the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which adopted a Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) in 2022. The GBF includes Targets that Parties have committed to addressing by 2030. Two of these Targets (5 and 9) explicitly support the sustainable use and trade of species in a way that benefits people and the environment. 

Legal, sustainably regulated trophy hunting fits the definition of sustainable use, meaning the UK has committed to supporting it by signing the GBF. Countries in Africa that rely heavily on income from trophy hunting for conservation and community livelihoods are rightly aggrieved when the UK government pledges their support internationally, while planning to undermine them with import bans.

According to the poll data, the UK public shows a similar disregard for African livelihoods and government policies. When asked if they would support a trophy hunting ban even if it harmed African livelihoods, 83% of respondents said yes. Over half (55%) of respondents said they would still support a ban even if African governments opposed it. 

When considered together, the UK government and its public show a clear disregard for the impacts of their policies on wildlife conservation and rural African livelihoods. Additionally, the government reveals a disregard for CITES and CBD as international agreements to support conservation and rural livelihoods. 

Skewed perceptions of British vs. African conservation 

During a debate about the previous Bill to ban trophies, Lord Richard Benyon (then the Minister of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), emphasised that the Bill would not affect the exportation of hunting trophies from the UK (e.g. of deer or boar). His reasoning for this was: “We have appropriate controls in place to protect our wildlife and to manage hunting in this country; we will not be amending any of our legislation or regulations on hunting in this country.” 

Communities in Zimbabwe made their point about the hypocrisy of the UK’s stance by importing a deer trophy from Scotland and proudly displaying it in their village. Their message is clear: if the UK thinks it is acceptable to export trophies from legal, regulated hunting, then why is it not acceptable for African nations to do the same? 

Lord Benyon implied that countries exporting trophies to the UK—including African countries—do not have appropriate hunting controls and are unable to protect their own wildlife, hence the need for the UK to ‘help’ them by imposing an import ban. In contrast to Benyon’s statement, 86% of our poll respondents were in favour of banning the exports of UK hunting trophies if they were to go ahead with banning imports.

British poll respondents nonetheless shared a similar rose-tinted view of conservation in the UK to their former Minister. When asked where they thought the UK ranked in terms of conserving its native large wild animals, 28% placed it in the top ten, and 37% placed it between 11 and 50 worldwide. Only 7.7% of the respondents replied correctly that the UK ranks outside of the top 100 (the UK’s real rank is 123rd).

Using the same global ranking system, Botswana is ranked first, and Zimbabwe is ranked fifth. Only 18% of our respondents correctly ranked either of these countries in the top ten. Therefore, these excellent conservation outcomes are poorly known and appreciated. In contrast, the UK’s terrible outcomes are virtually unknown despite its status as one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world.

Conclusion: Populism in the UK hurts African countries

The IEA report urges the UK government to abide by the international agreements that it has signed, particularly by adhering to existing CITES mechanisms for importing hunting trophies. Both the report and the poll show that current British perceptions of trophy hunting and wildlife conservation in Africa are based on misinformation and perceptions rather than reality.

With the second reading of the new UK Bill scheduled for mid-2025, now is the time for Africans to showcase how their successful conservation model works, including the role of hunting. African leaders and affected communities should stand firmly against trophy import bans proposed by any country that harm national conservation efforts, local livelihoods, and Africa’s iconic wildlife.

 

Shylock Muyengwa, Programmes Director, Resources Africa

Francis Vorhies, Director, African Wildlife Economy Institute

 

  • Prof Francis Vorhies

    Director & Professor Extraordinary

  • Dr Shylock Muyengwa