Monday, July 27, 2020

How COVID-19 devastated African Safari industry

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Charvi Trivedi

Article Title

How COVID-19 devastated African Safari industry

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

July 27, 2020

URL

African Safari

African Safari | Source: Sneha via Unsplash

With COVID-19 wrecking the economies of superpowers like the US and China, Africa is no exception. The continent of Africa is bestowed with rich biodiversity which attracts millions of tourists every year. But due to the pandemic, the safari industry of Africa is in a freefall.

The countries which are visited more often by the international tourists for their remarkable safari experiences include Botswana, Kenya, Namibia, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia. These contribute more than 12 billion US dollars to the economy, according to the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO).

The tourism industry is one of the most impacted economic sectors due to lockdowns being imposed all over the world. The magnitude of loss came into light when Safaribookings.com, a website for booking safari tours in Africa, ran its fourth monthly survey. The bookings this year declined by a massive 75%. “We don’t have bookings, and we don’t have money to pay salaries for staff, office rental etc. Things are really bad” says a Kenyan safari vehicle operator. Thousands of the people depending on services related to industry lost the livelihood due to this downturn..

Khimbini Hlongwane, the proprietor of a small tour business in Kruger National Park of South Africa, is devastated as he had invested all his savings to purchase a new minibus for his visitors. “It hasn’t moved since the day we bought it,” he says.  Leon Plutsick, who owns a lodge in Manyeleti private game reserve adjacent to the Kruger National Park says that he is barely surviving on the remaining meagre reserves. What used to be a lodge packed with tourists, is now replaced by Baboons. A tour guide and father of four, Sipho Nkosi, who earns a decent amount of 550 rand per tour, finds himself and his family in troubled waters. “We’d saved some money. But it's running out, so we’ll start starving” he says.

Not only the local communities but also the prolific wildlife of Africa is bearing the brunt of the pandemic. Tourist funds play a key role in conservation projects. Jackson Looseyia, a conservationist and lodge owner at Maasai Mara says, “In conservation terms, it is a crisis. We have no money coming in whatsoever, and the future is so bleak”.

Many of the families dependent on ecotourism see no option but to turn towards poaching as a means of survival. This further poses a threat to the species. Dickson Kaelo, CEO of Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association says, “Due to the high rates of unemployment, commercial bushmeat has become rampant in some areas. Recently there were even cases of giraffes killed for commercial purposes”. At least six black rhinos, who might face extinction soon, were killed by poachers in Okavango Delta, Botswana, in the month of March. Efforts are being taken to evacuate the remaining rhinos and shift them to safer places.

The Tourism Business Council of South Africa is urging the government to reopen the national parks and sanctuaries for the public, latest by September. However, the South African government states that the tourism industry is not likely to reopen before 2021.

Kenya, Namibia and Rwanda are not open for tourists. Zambia is permitting tourists but with an obligatory two-week quarantine. Tanzania has imposed no such requirements. However, tourists will think twice before going on any international trips as we have not yet won the fight against coronavirus.

All this has left the people associated with the ecotourism sector in Africa in a dark tunnel with seemingly no end at the moment.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 4:52 PM

Randomised Control Trials and the Alleviation of Poverty in India

Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo won the 2019 Nobel Prize in Economics for their “experimental approach in alleviating global poverty”. Their experimental approach encompassed a variety of novel methods to understand and analyse interventions and Randomised Control Trials (RCTs). Their research has been used by policy makers to make informed policy decisions to best help the marginalised.

What are RCTs?

To understand the effect of a policy, intervention, or medicine, decision makers try to measure the efficacy of the treatment. Do deworming pills given to children improve test scores? Does providing chlorinated water improve the health and economic outcomes of villages? These are some causal (read causal, i.e. caused by, not casual) questions researchers are interested in. The best way to analyse causal effects is to randomise the selection of people in the treatment and the control group (for example: children who are given deworming pills versus children who are not given the pills). This random selection of the two groups removes many statistical biases that might affect the results.

RCTs in India:

Many of the RCTs performed by Banerjee and Duflo were in India. They involved short- and long-term impact assessments of various interventions, policies, models, and treatments. We look at a few RCTs implemented in India:

Teacher absenteeism rates:

Troubled by the low attendance rates (or high absence rates) of public-school teachers in India, Duflo assessed the impact of financial incentives on the absence rates of teachers in Rajasthan. The study monitored teacher attendance by cameras, which was tied to a financial incentive if the attendance was high. From a baseline absence rate of 44%, teacher absenteeism in the treatment group fell by 21%, relative to the control group. High teacher attendance caused child test scores to improve too.

COVID-19 and health-seeking behaviour:

In the context of COVID-19, Banerjee tested the effect of sending messages via SMS that promoted health preserving behaviour. The results were very positive. By sending a short, 2.5-minute clip to 25 million randomly selected individuals in West Bengal, the intervention i) found a two-fold increase in symptom reporting to village health workers, ii) increased hand washing rates by 7%, and iii) increased mask-wearing by 2%. While mask-wearing rates increased only marginally, the spillover effects (wearing a mask stops the virus from infecting more people) were moderately high and positive.

Asset Transfers and the Notion of Poverty:

An RCT by Banerjee in West Bengal involving a productive asset transfer accompanied with training found large and persistent effects on monthly consumption and other variables. The treatment group reported 25% higher consumption levels relative to the control group, who did not receive the asset transfer and training. Implications of such RCTs are huge. The notion that the poor are lazy and unwilling to perform strenuous labour is falsified by this RCT. Often, what the poor lack are opportunities that are hard to come by, given their financial status. A small nudge, like the asset transfer, can cause large and positive effects on their well-being.  

Salt fortification to reduce anaemia:

RCTs also help rule out less cost-effective interventions. Duflo and Banerjee evaluated an RCT which distributed fortified salt in 400 villages of Bihar, to reduce the prevalence of anaemia. However, this intervention found no statistically significant impact on health outcomes like anaemia, hemoglobin, etc.  Thus, while RCTs help introduce novel methods of impacting the lives of the poor, they also help in ruling out in-effective measures. A policy maker might try other alternatives to reduce the prevalence of anaemia.

Are RCTs the gold standard?

Maybe. Extrapolating results from a regional RCT to national policies could present problems. Contextuality matters. A study that indicates positive gains for one region might present different, and rather adverse effects for another region. Nation wide effects might not be as prominent as regional results of a single RCT. The good part is that Banerjee and Duflo have a solution. Just perform more RCTs!

Read More