{"title":"\"Hunting Africa\": how international trophy hunting may constitute neocolonial green extractivism","authors":"S. Sullivan","doi":"10.2458/jpe.5489","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the post-Cold War neoliberal moment of the mid-1990s, Safari Club International's (SCI) nascent but now defunct 'African Chapter' published a Strategic Plan for Africa. Its aim was to secure the \"greatest hunting grounds in the world\" for access by SCI's hunting membership, the core of which is based in the United States. In advocating private sector-led trophy hunting under the umbrella of the SCI \"market place\", the plan supported an archetypal mode of 'green extractivism': killing indigenous African mammals and exporting body parts as hunting trophies was justified as 'green' by claiming this elite and arguably 'neocolonial' extraction of animals is essential for wildlife conservation. Already in 1996 SCI deflected scrutiny of this form of 'green extractivism' through promoting a view that any critique of this putative 'green hunting' should itself be dismissed as 'neocolonial.' This discursive twist remains evident in a moment in which trophy hunting is receiving renewed attention as countries such as the UK attempt to write trophy import bans into legislation. I engage with these politicized claims and counter-claims to foreground the lack of neutrality permeating trophy hunting discourse. I work with recent political ecology engagements with 'post-truth politics' to unpack SCI-supported advocacy for using accusations of 'neocolonialism' to counter critique of the neocolonial dimensions of trophy-hunting; showing how elite and greened extractivism through recreational access to land and African fauna is thereby consolidated. I draw on case material from Namibia – a country exhibiting stark inequalities of land and income distribution alongside a thriving trophy hunting industry – to explore how extracted 'green value' from 'conservation hunting' may shore up, rather than refract, neocolonial inequalities.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2458/jpe.5489","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
In the post-Cold War neoliberal moment of the mid-1990s, Safari Club International's (SCI) nascent but now defunct 'African Chapter' published a Strategic Plan for Africa. Its aim was to secure the "greatest hunting grounds in the world" for access by SCI's hunting membership, the core of which is based in the United States. In advocating private sector-led trophy hunting under the umbrella of the SCI "market place", the plan supported an archetypal mode of 'green extractivism': killing indigenous African mammals and exporting body parts as hunting trophies was justified as 'green' by claiming this elite and arguably 'neocolonial' extraction of animals is essential for wildlife conservation. Already in 1996 SCI deflected scrutiny of this form of 'green extractivism' through promoting a view that any critique of this putative 'green hunting' should itself be dismissed as 'neocolonial.' This discursive twist remains evident in a moment in which trophy hunting is receiving renewed attention as countries such as the UK attempt to write trophy import bans into legislation. I engage with these politicized claims and counter-claims to foreground the lack of neutrality permeating trophy hunting discourse. I work with recent political ecology engagements with 'post-truth politics' to unpack SCI-supported advocacy for using accusations of 'neocolonialism' to counter critique of the neocolonial dimensions of trophy-hunting; showing how elite and greened extractivism through recreational access to land and African fauna is thereby consolidated. I draw on case material from Namibia – a country exhibiting stark inequalities of land and income distribution alongside a thriving trophy hunting industry – to explore how extracted 'green value' from 'conservation hunting' may shore up, rather than refract, neocolonial inequalities.
在20世纪90年代中期冷战后的新自由主义时刻,Safari Club International刚刚成立但现已解散的“非洲分会”发布了一份非洲战略计划。其目的是确保“世界上最伟大的狩猎场”,供SCI的狩猎会员进入,其核心是美国。该计划倡导在SCI“市场”的保护伞下由私营部门主导的战利品狩猎,支持了一种典型的“绿色提取主义”模式:杀死非洲土著哺乳动物并将身体部位作为狩猎战利品出口,这被证明是“绿色”的,因为它声称这种精英和可以说是“新殖民主义”的动物提取对野生动物保护至关重要。早在1996年,SCI就通过宣传一种观点,即任何对这种假定的“绿色狩猎”的批评本身都应该被视为“新殖民主义”,从而转移了对这种形式的“绿色采掘主义”的审查随着英国等国试图将战利品进口禁令写入立法,战利品狩猎再次受到关注,这种争论的转折仍然很明显。我参与这些政治化的主张和反主张,以突出狩猎话语中缺乏中立性的问题。我与最近的政治生态学“后真相政治”合作,解读SCI支持的利用“新殖民主义”指控来反驳对新殖民主义狩猎维度的批评的主张;展示了精英和绿色的采掘主义是如何通过娱乐进入土地和非洲动物群而得到巩固的。我借鉴了纳米比亚的案例材料,探索从“保护性狩猎”中提取的“绿色价值”如何支撑而不是折射新殖民主义的不平等。纳米比亚在土地和收入分配方面存在着明显的不平等,同时战利品狩猎业也在蓬勃发展。