South African national parks Essay Example for Free

South African national parks Essay Kruger National Park was established in 1898 to protect the wildlife and habitats of South Africa. The largest of South African National Parks (SANParks), Kruger has been admired worldwide by conservationist, environmentalist, and tourists for its pristine environment and beauty. According to Strickland and Mixon (2010), Kruger has been heralded by many to be a leader in â€Å"environmental management, infrastructure, and, of course, biodiversity† (C-407). Although the main purpose for which Kruger National Park (KNP) was created is and remains conservationism, as a result of the park’s mission KNP attracts over a million visitors each year and is regarded as an â€Å"icon destination in international tourism† (Merwe Saayman, 2008, p. 154). The motives of tourists visiting KNP, according to Merwe Saayman (2008), are identified as escape – such as visiting exciting places, and nature –described as to see endangered species. As seen by the tourists of KNP, the park has provided â€Å"a place to escape while enjoying the Big 5†. (Merwe Saayman, 2008, p.158). Ethical Dilemma To maintain and protect the environment of the park has required a large operating budget. As of 2010 the dollars necessary to meet the strategic goals of SANParks was well over 5. 5 million (Strickland Mixon, 2010). At the same time the South African government, a large grant provider to the park, began to reduce its funding of the park. As a result, SANParks needed to increase revenue streams to make up for the shortfall in grants provided by the government. One such source of income has been via wildlife sales through the game capture unit of the park. Originally the game capture unit of Veterinary Wildlife Services (VWS) was established to provide critical support to conservation efforts for rare and threatened species of animals in the park. This effort included the endangered rhino. The capture unit’s main objectives with regards to the endangered rhino were to control the population, expand the population both inside and outside the park, and make the population more resilient (Strickland Mixon, 2010). As pressure for self-funding has increased the objectives of the game capture unit have been shifted and have become more focused on the revenue stream provided by the sale of rhinos. According to Strickland and Mixon (2010), revenue from the sale of rhinos generated over 7 million dollars in 2009. For VWS and conservationist biologists of SANParks two crucial strategic organizational objectives have become conflicted: Enhancing the conservation status of rare and threatened species Generating revenue for the SANParks through wildlife sales Impact on Strategic Vision There has been a tremendous demand for rhinos in the world market both for trophy hunting and for the horns of these animals. Although SANParks has had strict criteria under which these animals are sold, by selling rhinos they have indirectly contributed to the hunting and illegal poaching of these animals. In addition, while SANParks controls the primary market in which they sell rhinos, it is difficult if not impossible to control the secondary markets where many of the SANParks rhinos eventually ended up. According to Coniff (2011) conservationists, like Tom Milliken of Traffic, a group that monitors the international wildlife trade, agree that â€Å"trophy hunting can be a legitimate contributor to the conservation of rhinos. † At the same time, they also agree that hunting has produced a â€Å"moral gray zone† (Coniff, 2011). It is imperative that SANParks finds new sources of revenue streams to maintain the mission and objectives for which the Kruger Park was originally created. Internal Strengths: Unrivaled wildlife diversity and easy viewing Leaders who want to see Kruger and its wildlife prosper Exceptional game capture unit. Income generation from selling of rhinos Internal Weaknesses: Less income due to gov’t grant to Kruger being done away with Less money for VWS to take care of wildlife as best they can Selling rhinos for income generation given the uncertainty of where they will end up (private park, private hunting park, black market, different cultures) Leasing out land to private companies who are making money that Kruger could make if they were to utilize the space for other income generating activities External Threats: Buyers with wrong intentions Cultures value rhino horns because of cultural beliefs. Demand is extremely high for rhino horns and is worth $7,200 per pound on the black market Poaching has become more prominent because of the value of horns on black market External Opportunities: Research and solicitation for other conservation organizations for funding Explore more tourist opportunities for funding Hunting on Kruger premises as an income and tourist generator. SWOT Analysis A SWOT analysis is a powerful tool that is used for analyzing organizations internal strengths and weaknesses and its market opportunities and external threats to ensure a healthy future well-being for the organization. Organizations use the SWOT to evaluate current conditions and make strategic changes that will help to strengthen them. An organizations strengths and weaknesses are the internal situations within the organization and its opportunities and threats are the external situations outside its organization. Internal Strengths The SWOT analysis above demonstrates that Kruger has a great deal of strengths to work with in order to generate the income needed while fulfilling its mission as a conservation site for the endangered rhino. First and foremost, Kruger has some great leaders that truly care for the well-being of Kruger National Park. Among these prominent leaders is Dr. Markus Hofmeyr, head of Veterinary Wildlife Services for SANParks and has been taking care of the park animals for a number of years. As head of VWS he is concerned with how KNP will be able to continue to take care of its wildlife with the amount of money that is required. Dr. David Mabunda, SANParks’ chief executive officer, is also concerned about the wildlife population of KNP. Dr. Mabunda has stressed the importance of protecting the rhino population both inside and outside the park by either selling or donating rhinos. According to Mabunda, â€Å"it is too risky to keep the entire rhino population at Kruger because of the danger of losing them should there be an outbreak of disease or rampant poaching†(C-409). With Kruger being the largest supplier of rhinos in the world, the park generates about $32k per sale of a rhino. In 2009, 500 rhinos were sold in South Africa, 252 of these transactions came from Kruger. That is approximately $8,064,000 of revenue that Kruger saw in 2009 just for selling rhinos. Although a costly activity, Kruger’s exceptional game capture unit plays a large role in Kruger being the largest supplier of rhinos. Game capture has also made it easier to manage rare species by placing them in breeding enclosures. Because of KNP’s expert game capture unit, the park is able to ensure protection and a healthy environment for not only the rhinos but all of its wildlife. Kruger’s reputation for its unrivaled wildlife diversity and easy viewing of its many species is another of its many internal strengths. Internal Weaknesses The SWOT analysis displays some internal weaknesses that Kruger has been experiencing. Lack of money has become a major issue due to the cut of an annual grant that has long been provided to SANParks by the South African National Government. This cut has put pressures on Kruger to come up with ways to self-fund its park and has, according to Strickland and Mixon (2010) â€Å"threatened the ability of SANParks’ Veterinary Wildlife Services to continue to deliver normal veterinary and operational services† (C-406). Strickland and Mixon (2010) state that there are 7 private lodge concessions and over the years these concessions have been leased to partnerships between communities and private companies. The concessions were placed on tender, and areas were allocated for 25 to 30 year leases where these companies had tourist operations. When the lease is up, the fixed assets become SANParks property and they can decide whether to lease or retender the concession. This land that has for so long been leased could be a major missing income generator. Currently this as an internal weakness of Kruger’s because this land could provide many income generating activities that Kruger is missing out on due to its decision to lease out the land to private companies. External Threats. Although the selling of rhinos is listed as a strength because it is an income generator, it can also be classified as a weakness because we are uncertain that the rhinos being sold are in the hands of people with the best intentions. Kruger’s rhino conservation efforts are being jeopardized due to buyers who are in secondary markets, most of which include hunters and members of the black market. The unknown destination of rhinos sold in the secondary market pose an external threat to Kruger National Park. Private parks buy these rhinos then turn around and have them hunted for a profit of 82k. Because of the high demand for rhino horns on the black market, buyers in the secondary market buy these rhinos for 32k and sell their horns on the black market for $7,200 per pound of rhino horn. That is roughly $43,200 per rhino horn. Poaching has become more rampant than ever due to the high value of horns in the black market. In Asia the rhino horn has been prevalent in traditional medicine, used as a cure for the common cold and other illnesses. Some even believe it can cure cancer. Oryx says the rhino horn is in great demand in North Yemen; men wear rhino horn daggers around their neck as a symbol self-defense, honor, and a man’s word. Since 1970, it is said that half of the rhino horn on the market has ended up in North Yemen. Vietnam is also a major player in the illegal sale of rhino horns due to the beliefs of the horn being a healing agent. Market Opportunities Although there are a significant number of external threats, there are some market opportunities that Kruger can take advantage of that would greatly increase funding for the park and its veterinary wildlife services. Solicitation for other conservation groups to come and research Kruger’s wildlife is a large opportunity not only for the park but also for the conservations groups that are solicited to. The presence of conservation groups will also give Kruger the opportunity to add more wildlife and endangered species to the mix. This will in turn give way for more tourist opportunities. Hunting is a desirable of many; a possible opportunity for Kruger could involve hunting of these wild beasts. This would then give Kruger the opportunity to select the Rhinos that are eligible for hunting, which will become a win-win for income generation and conservation of healthy Rhinos. Solutions to Contributing factors The SWOT analysis identified four factors that are contributing to the ethical dilemma facing SANParks. The main factors are a lack of money, hunting practices, cultural beliefs around the world and poaching. After much discussion and thought solutions were identified for each of the issues and the benefits and drawbacks of each one. Budget shortfall solutions The first issue identified was the lack of money. SANParks has had funding pulled by the government and this has created an operating deficit. Without additional income, it will be difficult for the park to continue its normal operations. That being said, the solution for the money issue needs to include a way to generate more money. Two solutions are recommended to solve this issue. The first would be to solicit to conservation groups and private investors around the world for additional funding through donations. In return, they park could provide research opportunities to these groups. The added income would be the biggest pro argument and would allow the park to continue its current operations. However, this solution does come with several drawbacks. Donated funds are inconsistent and can be pulled at any time. Relying on donations would offer the possibility of the park ending up in the same spot in a few years. Accepting donations also opens the park to criticism from the private investors and donators. For example, they may not agree with the capturing process done by SANParks and may pull their funding if the practice continues. Another viable option to increase income for the park is to allow more tourist options within the park. These options can include safaris, hunting, fishing, research and all other areas of tourism. These tourist options are already done on the park and often by private companies. This is an area where SANParks could step in and begin managing these services themselves. Again, the biggest pro to this solution is the possibility of income generation. According to Strickland and Mixon (2010), SANParks is currently selling its captured rhinos on the market for $30,300. A typical rhino hunting expedition can cost $82,400 per hunter. That is over $50,000 per rhino in opportunity costs. The park could definitely look into hunting as a tourism option and gain some of this market share. There are a couple of cons to getting into the tourism business. Some of the attractions or services would require some up-front costs. For example, Safaris require vehicles to transport tourists around the park and also requires guides. The park will need to make an initial investment to purchase the equipment and pay tour guides. The same can be said if hunting is allowed as part of the tourism attractions. Another drawback to this solution is that if the park promotes hunting, it may be viewed as a conflict to their goal of conserving rhinos. That view can be debated in that population management is a key success factor to maintaining a healthy herd of rhinos. For this reason, it may be a benefit to allow hunters on the park if it is managed properly. Hunting solutions The second issue or factor is the amount of rhino hunting that takes place. Currently SANParks captures and sells rhinos on the open market. Private companies buy these rhinos and place them on controlled hunting plots and allow individuals to hunt these rhinos. As stated above, these hunting expeditions can cost $82,400 per hunter. This demand has resulted in more and more rhinos ending up in the hands of hunters. Once they are sold, SANParks has no control over how the rhino is managed. This practice goes against the main goal of the park to conserve rhinos. There are a couple of solutions to reduce the amount of hunting going on outside the park and on private land. The first is the same solution for the lack of money issue. SANPark should allow hunting to take place on the park. This should decrease some of the hunting on private land and will allow the park to some of the market share. The drawback is also the same as above. Allowing hunters on the park could hurt the image of the park’s main goal which is to conserve rhinos. Another solution to limiting the amount of hunting on private land is to restrict the sale of rhinos only to other conservation groups. This may include other parks, zoos and research groups. The biggest benefit to this is it would reduce the number of rhinos available to private hunting organizations. This solution would be difficult to carry out. It would be difficult to manage the sale of every rhino and the effort may be too great to be realistic. Limiting the amount of rhinos available to private buyers may also increase the demand in the black market and in turn may increase poaching. Cultural solutions The third issue discussed that is contributing to SANPark’s dilemma is the practices of various cultures around the world. Some cultures view the rhino horn as a cure for diseases, aphrodisiac, and rhino horn daggers. This increases the demand for rhino horns and threatens the safety of rhinos on the park. According to Coniff (2011). , the demand spiked in 2008 after claims that a rhino horn cured liver cancer in Vietnam. One solution to this issue would be to educate other cultures on the damage caused by purchasing rhino horns. Perhaps if they were made aware that their practices were putting rhinos at risk, they would change. This solution is probably not viable. The benefit would be great in that it would reduce demand for the horns; however, the cons heavily outweigh the pros. Getting cultures to change their practices would not be easy, cost effective, or in the best interest of the park. Changing a cultures belief is not something that can be done easily as these beliefs develop over years and years in a culture. It would also require an investment for the park to produce and circulate the education material. In addition, it could also reflect badly on the park if they were to attack or try to change a cultures belief. The second solution to the culture dilemma would be to lobby governments to increase punishments for rhino products sold on the black market. Most activity of rhino horns being sold occurs on the black market. A higher penalty for selling and buying these horns on the black market may defer some traffic and reduce the demand. The negative side of this is that the demand for these horns by the final buyers is not likely to change. The end result may just be that prices are driven up and the supply and demand remains the same. Poaching solutions The final factor contributing to SANPark’s dilemma is poaching. According to the Strickland and Mixon (2010), the demand for rhinos and rhino horns has steadily increased over the past 15 years and has resulted in an increase in poaching. Poaching is a big problem for both the park and for rhinos around the world. The two solutions offered to reduce poaching are to lobby for higher penalties if caught and to increase security on the park. Lobbying for higher penalties could deter some poachers from taking the risk. The increase in the penalty would probably have little effect on established poachers that dominate the market. The other option to reduce poaching would be to increase security on the park. The biggest pro for this solution is that it would make it harder for poachers to gain access to the park and rhinos. However, it is Strickland and Mixon (2010) suggest Kruger already has one of the best anti-poaching units in South Africa. According to France-Presse, (2011), poachers are using helicopters, night vision goggles and high powered rifles to hunt the rhinos. Strickland and Mixon (2010) also discuss the advanced weaponry that is used by poachers. Combating this type of criminal has been and will continue to be a tough obstacle to overcome. This presents the question; at what point does putting more money into defense become wasteful SANParks may have already reached that limit. Recommended Solution Since the lack of funding is Kruger’s biggest hurdle, the recommended solution is to explore more tourist options within Kruger Park in order to generate income. This will include guided safaris, hunting, fishing, and camping which will allow the park to utilize its resources. Rational 1. This is the recommended solution because it is the solution that will allow Kruger Park to generate more of its own income. Tourism at Kruger Park is already one of the largest in South Africa, so to enlarge what already exists they should introduce hunting to the national park. When SANparks captures and sells a rhino, the consumer pays an average of $30,000 per rhino. The rhinos are sold to many different consumers, private game owners, ranchers/breeders, and other parks. When these rhinos are sold to private game owners, they are sometimes hunted at which people pay about $80,000 to hunt their property. (Strickland and Mixon C-407) The recommendation is to include hunting at Kruger Park and make a possible profit of $50,000 per rhino. Rational 2 By allowing these new tourist options, Kruger Park will in turn protect the rhino population and prevent more poachers from killing the rhinos for their horns, which is SANparks main goal, to protect the rhinos from extinction. SANparks should continue to sell to other protected parks so that the rhinos do not become extinct, due the risk of wide spread disease in certain parts of the world. Rational 3 This solution to solve the money deficit is also low cost, which is necessary to make a profit. Since Kruger Park already hosts safaris and camping, a lot of extra equipment should not be needed. The main objective to low cost solutions is to use the resources that are already in your possession. The park includes 7,722 square miles of conservation area that is already gated to control trespassing. The park is also known for the wide variety of species on the property; 147 mammal species, 49 species of fish, 507 bird species, etc. . (Strickland and Mixon C-407) The park should utilize these great resources and generate its own income. Rational 4 Out of all the solutions presented, this solution is the most attainable. Since several cultures believe that the horns contain healing properties, or they make good weapons, or is an aphrodisiac, it would be difficult to convince a group of people that their culture is wrong. Although the horns are believed to be healing, they are really only made up of the same materials that our finger nails are made of and Amin, a researcher says, â€Å"You’d do just as well chewing on your fingernails. † (2012) While this may be true, it would be hard to convince a specific group of people that what their ancestors taught them is a lie, and therefore protesting against poachers and trying to raise awareness may, or may not work, and the rhinos will still be unprotected. But, with this solution the money earned from extra tourism can be filtered down to other contributing factors and help to solve those issues as well. Action Plan As Kruger Parks moves towards offering more options to promote tourism they will first need to look into their target markets as well as the current industry of rhino hunting and safaris. Looking at the competition it would seem logical for Kruger parks to focus on offering safari tours, camping, hunting, helicopter tours and educational exhibits in order to increase their tourist appeal. Now that Kruger is focusing on running these activities themselves it would make most financial sense to cancel all previous contracts with outside companies that were able to offer these concessions on their land. In offering these extra tourist options it will be necessary to increase their current marketing team to promote their parks and set up vacation packages working with airlines and resorts in the area. Kruger will also need to purchase Safari automobiles, a helicopter, and hunting gear. By keeping their park in the most natural state possible it will allow them to save money as opposed to setting up a zoo environment. One of their largest overhead costs may be the addition of more staff such as the marketing team, expert hunters, a helicopter pilot and tour guides. Kruger may have to bring on an extra helicopter to support more rides a couple years down the line when they are been able to raise enough capital. Until then, they will be able to use their current revenue to finance these new additions in staff and marketing. If they will set up a lower cost hunting price to gain customers they will be able to raise prices when their name and brand get out to the consumers. Until then Kruger should increase prices of items not in the hunting packages such as equipment and trophy prizes that the clients will not think about till they are on property. The biggest risk Kruger may face would be spending all of their current revenue/assets on jumping into a new market and not seeing sufficient return in profits. If they are unable to compete with the current companies in this market it will be in a bigger hole than when they started. The good news is Kruger will be entering the tourist/hunting market after learning from competitor’s current prices and build off of their mistakes to enhance the experience for customers. Other risks may include activist groups coming at them for not caring for the Rhino. One way to make them happy would be offering hunting trips with darts so that Rhinos will not be killed. Kruger will be able to charge extra dart and trophy prizes on these trip while still offering lower prices. Luckily, many activists see the logic in controlling the Rhino population in parks. â€Å"Friedman, Muir and Pelham Jones, of the Private Rhino Owners’ Association, said most state-run parks in South Africa were reaching the end of their productive carrying capacity and there was a need to remove â€Å"surplus† rhino (Carnie, 2012). † It is a positive that they already have a pretty large fallowing, however, another potential risk may be losing some of their previous customers due to the change in their business model. Finally, they will need to keep a close eye on the supply and demand of Rhinos on their property because they do not want to run into the risk of losing to many Rhinos to their hunting business. Linda’s References Coniff, R. (2011). Defending the Rhino. Smithsonian, 42(7), 64 Merwe, P. , Saayman, M. (2008). Travel motivations of tourists visiting Kruger National Park. Koedoe African Protected Area Conservation And Science, 50(1), 154-159. doi:10. 4102/koedoe. v50i1. 140 Strickland, A. , Mixon, W. (2010). Rhino Capture in the Kruger National Park. In Thompson, A. , Peteraf, M. , Gamble, J. , Strikland, A. (2012). Crafting and executing strategy. (18th ed. ). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Jeff’s Reference Carnie, T. (2012). Ian Player defends hunting the rhino. South Africa: Cape Times News. p. 6. Marjorie’s Reference Daniel Martin Varisco (1989). Beyond rhino horn—wildlife conservation for North Yemen. Oryx, 23, pp 215219 Matt’s References Coniff, R. (2011). Defending the Rhino. Smithsonian, 42(7), 64 France-Presse, A. (2011) Rhino Poaching Rampant. Windsor Star News. D6. Shannon’s References Rhino horn use: Fact vs. fiction. (2012). Retrieved from http://www. pbs. org/wnet/nature/episodes/rhinoceros/rhino-horn-use-fact-vs-fiction/1178/ Bryson, D. (2012). Vietnam craves rhino horn; costs more than cocaine. Retrieved from http://news. yahoo. com/vietnam-craves-rhino-horn-costs-more-cocaine-062134928. html.