Speech by Emmanuel Fundira President of Safari Operators Association of Zimbabwe at NAPHA AGM 2014

AfricaHunting.com

Founder
AH ambassador
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Messages
13,061
Reaction score
9,155
Website
www.africahunting.com
Media
5,597
Articles
321
Speech by Emmanuel Fundira President of Safari Operators Association of Zimbabwe (SOAZ)

NAPHA AGM 26th November 2014

EFFECTS OF ELEPHANTS BAN ON ZIMBABWE AND IMPLICATIONS FOR NAMIBIA AND AFRICA.

Introduction

This is not the title I was given to talk to by my guests but through discussion I have modified my talk to enable me to share with you the overall impact of trade bans in general and more specifically those directed at wildlife and elephants in particular.

I am a Safari Operator in Zimbabwe and neighboring Zambia and my visit is not just to talk but also to look at opportunities here in Namibia and Africa in general.

It is now common knowledge that on the 4th April 2014 the USFWS an Agency of the USA Government imposed a ban on Zimbabwe and Tanzania with regards to the importation of raw Ivory into the USA based on anecdotal data far away from science based processes.

The ban was imposed without warning and it came as a shock and total surprise. Of great concern though is that the ban was imposed when most operators had concluded business with USA clients at the Dallas and Vegas show in Jan and Feb 2014 respectively under their watchful eye of the same American Government officials.

Worst still the hunting season which runs as a calendar year in Zimbabwe had already started and a number of Americans had been guests to the Zimbabwean operators.

Panic therefore ran amok in the industry however and with the help of SCI a top notch delegation of which I was part of was dispatched to Capitol Hill in early May 2014 to dialogue and lobby the Americans to rescind on the ban.

Let me at this juncture on behalf of SOAZ and the Zimbabwean Government take this opportunity to thank SCI , SADC Governments and in particular OPHASA who gave us unqualified support during this very difficult period .

The support from all of you gave us confidence and resolve to take the Americans head on.

In Zimbabwe Ladies and Gentleman 800 000 families depend for their livelihoods on the exploitation of wildlife resources under the CAMPFIRE Program.

Rural communities rely for infrastructural support on sport hunting which directly contributes towards the construction and maintenance of roads bridges and schools, provision of sanitation, water and health services.

This therefore means communities whose livelihoods depends on the exploitation of wildlife resources became victims of poor conservation decisions made a long way in freshly air conditioned offices on Capitol Hill.

I personally recall taking to task the Assistant Secretary of State for FWS during the visit to Washington.

This lady could not defend the U.S. decision to promulgate a ban but justified it by saying that it was a way that would enable the U.S. Endangered Species Act to gain attention it deserved from the African Nations.

As alluded earlier delegates education for most kids in Zimbabwe is dependent on wildlife incomes and alas how many children in USA depend on income from elephants to enable their kids to go to school?

Granted the unfortunate loss of 110 elephants in the early part of 2014 due Cyanide Poisoning in Hwange National Park is regrettable despite the fact that ( Hwange National Park has a thriving Elephant Population estimated around 30 000 )

It is just a great pity that the GREENS took advantage of the tragedy and blew it up out of proportion.

The Government of Zimbabwe, Ladies and Gentleman through the law enforcement agencies took swift action and ensured the perpetrators of this heinous crime were brought to book and imposed punitive sentences up to 15 years prison terms on the culprits.

The increase in illegal killing and illegal trafficking in wildlife in Africa in general has not helped either

What we have seen is the enactment of the "Executive Order "Combating Wildlife trafficking by the President of the USA in July 2013 which was followed by the London Declaration of the illegal Wildlife Trade in February 2014.

The USFWS decision to ban elephant trophy imports is indeed a political reaction to the general hysteria fomented by animal rights organizations.

There is therefore ,in my view a vast fundamental divide between the FWS and developing countries on what constitutes conservation and how best to achieve it.

One of the biggest gripes against USFWS is their failure to appreciate that management of Elephants in Africa are complex system involving people economics and ecology.

If it is to be successful elephants will have to be valuable to people and the income derived from Elephants will have to outcompete the incomes available from other sources.

In my view delegates the U.S. Endangered Species Act is not structured to accommodate such concepts.

Delegates we have a bigger enemy out there.

It is time for us all to pull together to overcome the external threat to successful conservation of our wildlife.

By all I mean those who have wildlife on their land ( the primary stakeholders the Parks Authorities , private land owners and local people in communal land) and those who depend on wildlife for their livelihoods.

After all MONEY is the key to successful conservation of wildlife.

Research show that Zimbabwe needs USD26m to protect all elephants in an area of 80 000km².

Based on Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) figures for 2013

Income from Safari Hunting is estimated at $ 24 m almost enough to meet the total budget.

On the other hand income from sale of ivory in our vaults derived from natural mortality is estimated at $25 m in the absence of Trophy hunting.

Trophy hunting obviously reduces the income from natural mortality but there is an optimum level of hunting which combined with collection of Ivory from natural mortality which should produce about $33m annually more than enough to meet the required budget.

Both forms of income identified in above are now denied to us as there is no effective legal Ivory trade and on the other hand income from safari hunting in 2014 is down by 40% of its former value.

In their missionary zeal to conserve elephants the FWS appear oblivious to the recurrent expenditure needed to achieve this.

They effectively tell us "Pull yourself up by your own Bootstraps"

Ladies and Gentleman and delegates to this Conference,

"Whatever measures are being contemplated at the global level for improving the conservation status of elephants (or any other species) in any country in Africa, it is vital to ensure that those measures do not disrupt the continuous flow of income to those on the ground who are both protecting elephants and making a significant part of their livelihoods from elephants.

Wildlife conservation is a delicately balanced operation that requires income to meet its costs"

WAY FORWARD:

In our favor delegates, ivory prices have tripled since 2010 albeit in an illegal market but a real market nonetheless.

Notwithstanding the FWS assertion that the Zimbabwe elephant population is in decline most of big national parks are probably carrying more elephants than they can support sustainably and populations need to be reduced.
Here comes the radical finding.

"Simply stand on the touch line and collect Ivory from natural mortality it will be sufficient to pay the bills."

"I hear you saying loud and clear that --- But there is no legal trade in IVORY?"

There are several options:

1. A well-structured proposal to CITIES outlining our financial predicament and describing how we want to solve it and seeking a dispensation for a continuous legal trade in ivory.

I am optimistic that it will work as it places the onus on the opposing parties to provide the required budget to protect elephants.

We would far rather be self-sufficient than rely on hand outs from donors.

2. Take the bold step and denounce the Treaty i.e. pull out of CITIES and seek bilateral trade arrangements with China Japan and other Asian Countries.

3 .Sale the Ivory to China based on the fact that a sale of Ivory to China requires the exporting country to issue a CITIES export permit stating that the Ivory to be exported was acquired in accordance with the laws of the country and will not be detrimental to the survival of the species.

In return, the Scientific Authority of the importing country would issue an import permit accepting the findings of the exporting country.

Following this the transaction would proceed in total compliance with articles of CITIES.

The rest of the world could jump up and down to no effect and certainly there is no legal basis of challenging such a decision.

So where does this leave us????

There is a vast fundamental divide delegates between FWS and developing countries on what constitutes conservation and how best to achieve it.

Africa’s primary wealth has always been in the value of its natural resources such as Elephants and Rhino.

Great pity that the Northern Hemisphere is still trying to control the use of wildlife in Africa when there is a huge scale mismatch between what they see as measures to enhance the conservation of elephants and the de facto local situation in Africa.

Rural people are poor, and see the value of elephants as a way to escape poverty.

The ban on ivory imports has created mistrust and cannot be sustained and the Northern Hemisphere should desist from perpetuating an imperialist agenda but instead shift position and join Africa to achieving economic prosperity.

Thank You for listening and it is now time to open discussion and share on our respective situations.

EA Fundira
 

Forum statistics

Threads
53,632
Messages
1,131,575
Members
92,699
Latest member
gpstracking
 

 

 

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Early morning Impala hunt, previous link was wrong video

Headshot on jackal this morning

Mature Eland Bull taken in Tanzania, at 100 yards, with 375 H&H, 300gr, Federal Premium Expanding bullet.

20231012_145809~2.jpg
 
Top