Which Countries Are The Best In Wildlife Conservation?

[UngulateNerd92]

• Botswana tops the list of countries that are doing the most to protect wildlife. It has the highest conservation land ratios in Africa and more than 25 percent of its land area is reserved for parks and other reserves.
• Namibia ranks second in the list. The country is so serious about wildlife conservation it’s the first nation in Africa to include laws that work towards protecting the environment in its constitution.
• Tanzania is dedicated to protecting their animals in the wild so much so that a third of this vast nation is protected.

Which Countries Are The Best In Wildlife Conservation?

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Shame to see no Latin American countries up there on the list, I was half expecting Costa Rica to have made the list.

But perhaps its no suprise, decades of progress is fast slipping in this area of the world and being rolled back in a matter of years and even months.

 

[Chlidonias]

Shame to see no Latin American countries up there on the list, I was half expecting Costa Rica to have made the list.

But perhaps its no suprise, decades of progress is fast slipping in this area of the world and being rolled back in a matter of years and even months.

The title of the article is misleading, and the article itself almost glosses over what the actual paper is about (although this is common in this type of article). The study was specifically about megafauna, hence the heavy over-representation of African countries. Carnivores had to be over 15kg to qualify and other mammals over 100kg. "Oceania" rates as a "major underperformer" in the study. The paper is useless if it is used to try and rate "which countries are the best in wildlife conservation" as this article would have you believe, and even if confined to megafauna it seems pretty clear that megafauna-heavy countries (e.g. in Africa) would score much higher than - say - European countries.

The full paper is here: Relative efforts of countries to conserve world’s megafauna - ScienceDirect

With regards to your post, however, note the sentence in the abstract which reads "Ninety percent of countries in North/Central America and 70% of countries in Africa were classified as major or above-average performers, while approximately one-quarter of countries in Asia (25%) and Europe (21%) were identified as major underperformers."

In terms of countries in North and Central America they rank three as "major performers", six as "above average" and one as "major underperformer". From their tiny map it looks like Mexico must be that one country.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

The full paper is here: Relative efforts of countries to conserve world’s megafauna - ScienceDirect

With regards to your post, however, note the sentence in the abstract which reads "Ninety percent of countries in North/Central America and 70% of countries in Africa were classified as major or above-average performers, while approximately one-quarter of countries in Asia (25%) and Europe (21%) were identified as major underperformers." In terms of countries in North and Central America they rank three as "major performers", six as "above average" and one as "major underperformer". From their tiny map it looks like Mexico must be that one country.

Thanks for that link , will check it out.

Excellent and inspiring to hear that a number of Central American countries and Mexico are pulling their weight in terms of conservation.

It seems to me that most South American countries should be looking North (but evidently not North of the Rio Grande) for inspiration in terms of biodiversity conservation.

 

[Arizona Docent]

Thanks for that link , will check it out.

Excellent and inspiring to hear that a number of Central American countries and Mexico are pulling their weight in terms of conservation.

It seems to me that most South American countries should be looking North (but evidently not North of the Rio Grande) for inspiration in terms of biodiversity conservation.

You misread his post. He said Mexico is the one "major underperformer" for Latin America, meaning they are doing poorly.

 

[Arizona Docent]

After the enlightened response from @Chlidonias I have no interest in reading the article since that is a bizarre way of tracking conservation success.

Botswana (which tops this list) has an interesting approach to wildlife conservation. Though I have not been to any African country (yet), I do loosely follow the safari offerings. The approach of Botswana is to cater to the rich. This is not a judgment or slander, just stating the facts. They made a conscious decision to only offer high-end safari lodges in low density in order to subsidize famous conservation units like Okavango Delta (which may be the single most desired photo location on the continent). It is next to impossible to visit the Delta for less than a thousand dollars a day.

The United States also has an interested approach. That is to transfer wildlife management to the individual states (with rare exceptions for endangered species or national park lands). The chief method of fundraising for state game and fish departments is the sale of hunting and fishing licenses (which is why most of them are called "game" departments and not "wildlife" departments). The sale of lottery tickets also subsidizes these programs.

Bhutan has a mandate to promote "gross national happiness" (over gross national product) and has something like seventy percent of their forest still intact. I don't think they allow hunting either?

 

[Jurek7]

Botswana (which tops this list) has an interesting approach to wildlife conservation. Though I have not been to any African country (yet), I do loosely follow the safari offerings. The approach of Botswana is to cater to the rich. This is not a judgment or slander, just stating the facts. They made a conscious decision to only offer high-end safari lodges in low density in order to subsidize famous conservation units like Okavango Delta (which may be the single most desired photo location on the continent). It is next to impossible to visit the Delta for less than a thousand dollars a day.

10 years ago I visited Botswana on a tent safari including Okavango delta for several times less than that. Botswana has campsites and local operators, too. Also, some people drive privately from South Africa. From what I remember talking to our guides, Botswana success is that they have diamond mines, not only tourism, and relatively stable and un-corrupt government.

The famous Okavango delta was actually the weakest point of the safari. Surprisingly low density of wildlife, almost no waterbirds. Also, the canoe transport is not efficient to search long distances for animals, more like a single cultural trip, not for game viewing. The best was probably the Chobe waterfront, completely over-packed with wildlife. Moremi and Savuti were also excellent.

 

[Arizona Docent]

10 years ago I visited Botswana on a tent safari including Okavango delta for several times less than that. Botswana has campsites and local operators, too. Also, some people drive privately from South Africa. From what I remember talking to our guides, Botswana success is that they have diamond mines, not only tourism, and relatively stable and un-corrupt government.

The famous Okavango delta was actually the weakest point of the safari. Surprisingly low density of wildlife, almost no waterbirds. Also, the canoe transport is not efficient to search long distances for animals, more like a single cultural trip, not for game viewing. The best was probably the Chobe waterfront, completely over-packed with wildlife. Moremi and Savuti were also excellent.

Interesting to hear a first person account and I appreciate your input. Your experience seems contrary to what is popularly portrayed in photographic circles.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

You misread his post. He said Mexico is the one "major underperformer" for Latin America, meaning they are doing poorly.

I see , my bad. Well they may be performing badly but certainly not as badly as Brazil right now, that takes some beating.

Even so it is good to hear that a number of Central American countries are performing well.

 

[MRJ]

After the enlightened response from @Chlidonias I have no interest in reading the article since that is a bizarre way of tracking conservation success.

Botswana (which tops this list) has an interesting approach to wildlife conservation. Though I have not been to any African country (yet), I do loosely follow the safari offerings. The approach of Botswana is to cater to the rich. This is not a judgment or slander, just stating the facts. They made a conscious decision to only offer high-end safari lodges in low density in order to subsidize famous conservation units like Okavango Delta (which may be the single most desired photo location on the continent). It is next to impossible to visit the Delta for less than a thousand dollars a day.

The United States also has an interested approach. That is to transfer wildlife management to the individual states (with rare exceptions for endangered species or national park lands). The chief method of fundraising for state game and fish departments is the sale of hunting and fishing licenses (which is why most of them are called "game" departments and not "wildlife" departments). The sale of lottery tickets also subsidizes these programs.

Bhutan has a mandate to promote "gross national happiness" (over gross national product) and has something like seventy percent of their forest still intact. I don't think they allow hunting either?

In 2018 my wife and I had the pleasure of staying at Chobe for four nights. The cost was a little over US$250 per person per night twin share.

Included was:

• Accommodation in a treehouse which was a little larger than a quality hotel room. We could sit on the balcony and watch the bushbabies in the trees at night.
• All meals.
• Alcohol.
• Laundry.
• Two 4-hour game drives daily, including options for boat trips on the river. So in total we spent 32 hours on game drives.
• Local transport within the township and airport transfers.

As was mentioned above, Chobe National Park was chock-a-block with wildlife. I guess we saw over 100 elephants on the first game drive.

The driver/guides were all professionally trained and licensed. It was obvious that our guide took incredible pride in his profession and he was very knowledgeable. We got on very well and he was obviously thrilled to have somebody who shared his enthusiasm for birds. While the vehicles could take up to nine people there were never more than four people in ours. On our last morning our guide organised a boat trip so we could go out and indulge our enthusiasm for birds. He even told another couple who expressed interest that our trip wouldn't interest them!

I understand that Botswana made the decision to promote lodge based tourism as a way of providing sustainable employment for its people. At the same time they invested in training and in conservation to ensure they had a product to sell. This was all after independence and the diamonds came later and I understand have declined in importance in recent years.

So Botswana is far from the cheapest option for an African safari but my experience was that it was good value, especially for the short period of time we had available.

I will say my only regret was that night drives were not allowed, which meant little chance to see small mammals. the problem is at night the National Park is a free fire zone for the Botswana army in their war against poachers.

 

[Arizona Docent]

More good input on Botswana. Clearly I am misinformed.

 

[Pantheraman]

I think Kenya's doing a pretty good job at protecting wildlife. True, they've had their issues in the past, but they've been turning things around quite a bit, and while things aren't perfect, they're good as I've noticed a good number of their wildlife populations have increased and they've made a few strides in conserving wildlife.