Impacts of Wildlife Tourism on Rural Livelihoods in Southern Africa - Responsible Tourism: Critical Issues for Conservation and Development - page 142

concession cash payment of US$99,953, wages (US$4267), handicraft sales
(US$31,242), game meat (valued at $14,708) in 2002-2003. 8 The per capita
benefit in 2002 was estimated at US$75 (Weaver and Skyer, 2003, cited in Skyer,
2004).
South Africa
Policy
The overarching vision of South Africa's Department of Environmental Affairs
and Tourism (DEAT) is to ensure a better life for all South Africans through the
growth of tourism and the sound management and protection of the country's
environment (DEAT, 2004). In 1996 the White Paper on the Development and
Promotion of Tourism was published. A foresighted part of the paper promoted
the development of responsible and sustainable tourism growth.The key elements
of responsible tourism include that communities should be involved in and benefit
from tourism, that local resources should be used sustainably, and should respect
local, natural and cultural environments (DEAT, 1996). Wildlife tourism in South
Africa includes consumptive and non-consumptive activities. (See the
Introduction chapter for more details on the South African responsible tourism
policy.)
Local spend
In 2002 a social accounting matrix was used by Conningarth Consultants to
evaluate the economic effects of nature tourism in Zululand. The analysis found
that nature tourism provided better opportunities for impoverished people than
did other industries. These advantages included more labour for unskilled and
semi-skilled workers, and higher returns on capital to local communities and small
businesses than the economy as a whole. For nature tourism 26 per cent of expen-
diture was spent at small, micro and medium-sized enterprises (SMMEs), and 14
per cent was spent in local communities, while total spending by the economy as a
whole was only 15 per cent of expenditure at SMMEs and 11 per cent in local
communities (Conningarth Consultants 2002, Aylward, 2003). When luxury and
budget accommodation were compared in Zululand, it was found that wildlife
tourism operations in lower price ranges (i.e. of US$7 9 ) generated more non-
management employment, in fact twice the number, of those priced at US$22 or
above (Aylward, 2003).
Employment
Also in Zululand, Porter et al (2003) found that higher proportions of employees
per hectare, and per bed, were employed at more expensive wildlife tourism enter-
prises (see Table 7.5). Higher prices are an indication of higher quality, and
therefore generate higher requirements for support services, from a hospitality
and game management perspective. As property size increases, more staff are also
required for conservation management activities, and as the number of beds
increase, more employees are needed to provide hospitality to tourists.