PICTURE: Zimbabwe has 84 000 elephants which are double the country’s carrying capacity
so the need to control their population through sport hunting.
IN THE previous episode we discussed how Zimbabwe has been working with Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), a multilateral treaty established to protect endangered plants (flora) and animals (fauna).
During the Seventeenth Conference of Parties (COP 17) of CITES which commenced on 24 September and ended on 5 October this year in Johannesburg, South Africa; Zimbabwe entered the session with a proposal to have the ban on the commercial trade of ivory from Zimbabwe being lifted for good.
In 1989, Zimbabwe’s African elephant (Loxodonta Africana) was listed in Appendix I which classifies a species as threatened with extinction. No trade in ivory allowed. A sigh of relief came in 1997 when the Zimbabwean elephant was down listed to Appendix II which classifies the species as not necessarily threatened with extinction but could become so if trade weren’t strictly regulated. As a result, there was need to ban commercial trade of ivory from Zimbabwe but trade would be allowed in live animal after approval from CITES regulatory arms.
In the just ended COP 17, Zimbabwe presented to CITES that its elephants are not threatened. Instead, the country has a population of 84 000 jumbos which is double the country’s carrying capacity. So, there is need for the control of the elephant population to avoid animal-human conflict.
Despite that campaign, Zimbabwe failed to acquire a two-thirds majority to win the proposal. What does this mean for Zimbabwe tourism?
The shooting down of Zimbabwe’s proposal means that the country has been pushed to depend much on non-consumptive tourism. Non-consumptive tourism refers to where people do holiday making without hunting. Consumptive tourism has much to do with hunting. Consumptive tourism is managed under Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE).
CAMPFIRE allows animals to be killed under problem animal control by approved hunters. Animals are hunted in safaris which are the areas adjacent to national parks where controlled hunting is permitted. Every year each safari operator is given a hunting quota by the State. Sport hunters then pay for a permit to shoot a quoted animal of their choice in a desired safari area. This is what CITES says should stop on Zimbabwe’s African elephants.
The question that follows is that can tourism suffer if consumptive tourism remains opposed by CITES?
During the opening session of the COP 17, businessman with world’s biggest private wildlife reserve, Save Valley Conservancy, Mr Wilfried Pabst highlighted that banning importation of trophies is like banning hunting itself.
Outlining that Southern Africa’s conservation industry is protecting 55 million hectares of land under conservation as well as 20 million animals, Mr Pabst also highlighted that hundred thousands of jobs are created by the conservation industry. Millions of people benefit from conservation jobs since a worker has ten people who depend on him/her.
PICTURE: Direct jobs like game managing, scouting, veterinary services, and research
will be loss if sport hunting is banned.
Direct jobs which include that of game managers, scouts, vets, and researchers will be at stake. Indirectly jobs like those of the hospitality, transport, creative (arts) and culture industries depend will also be lost. Tourists, especially from abroad are the main consumers of arts and crafts in the country.
Rural district councils as rural authorities are the ones which manage funds on behalf of CAMPFIRE Association. The councils are expected to develop infrastructure in their respective districts. Most councils which have CAMPFIRE programs in their areas depend much on the proceeds from sport hunting to develop the infrastructure that helps tourists access places of interest.
While some analysts argue that consumptive tourism racks money which is far below that of non-consumptive tourism, that should not be a reason why consumptive tourism should be totally shelved. The “little” that CAMPFIRE is contributing to Zimbabwe’s tourism, therefore Zimbabwe economy, should be let coming and help in the conservation of wildlife.
In essence, Zimbabwe needs both consumptive and non-consumptive tourism.