https://www.mmegi.bw/features/...g-with-wildlife/news



Hunting trophy ban must be backed by a global fund to support communities living with wildlife

Friday, February 11, 2022 | 190 Views |


Author
Dr Tamar Ron


The issue of trophy hunting is highly emotive, and the UK government plans to ban the import of trophies. But if it goes ahead, it must look at establishing a global conservation fund to help indigenous communities conserve the wildlife with which they live.
The British government and Parliament plans to ban the import of hunting trophies as part of a conservation initiative to protect endangered animals have been received with great enthusiasm by many organisations and individuals globally – and with sharp criticism from others.

Both proponents and opponents of the ban are very vocal, emotional, certain that they and only they are right, and accuse the others of being motivated by hidden agendas.

While proponents of the proposed ban praise its contribution to global conservation as well as to animal welfare, opponents claim that it undermines the rights of rural communities to use their local resources and to benefit from hunting.



This claim is relevant specifically in the context of community conservancies or similar institutional structures, where revenues from the legal trophy-hunting trade form part of local communities’ income in several countries, mainly in southern Africa. Nevertheless, the opponents of the proposed bill go as far as generalising that it “puts wildlife at risk”.

Proposed balanced approach

Proposed here is an integrated balanced approach of support for promoting a ban on trophy hunting and trade everywhere, while at the same time protecting the rights and addressing the needs of local communities that reside with wildlife in Africa and elsewhere.

The identification of these needs would have to be based on extensive dialogue and community consultations in range states of the species concerned, both in the context of established conservancies and among communities in countries where there is no conservancy system.

A special focus should be given to support for enhancing communities’ engagement in conservation, for developing sustainable livelihood opportunities and enabling access to education at all levels, and for mitigating the devastating impacts of human-wildlife conflict.

Poaching and the illegal wildlife trade

Legal hunting of wildlife is interlinked with poaching and the illegal wildlife trade in several ways. While opponents of the ban claim that reduced revenues from legal trophy hunting for certain communities would increase these community members’ motivation to engage in poaching and the illegal wildlife trade, proponents stress the impact of legal trade on facilitating, enabling and increasing the volume of poaching and illegal wildlife trade.

Particularly worrying is the negative impact on endangered iconic species that are threatened by the illegal trade in their trophies and in derivatives, such as rhino horn, ivory and lion bones.

Legal trade in wildlife hunting trophies and other derivatives forms a comfortable platform for laundering of illegal trade. Considering that the supply for legal trade in endangered species and their derivatives is very limited in nature, due to biological factors such as limited species abundance, life history and reproduction limitations, and that the demand for these products is not stable and normally exceeds the legal supply by far, laundering of illegally obtained wildlife derivatives as legal is bound to prevail wherever there is legal trade.

A ban can considerably reduce such illegal activities by reducing demand for these products and facilitating enforcement and judicial efforts.

In an ideal world, with sufficient legislation and regulation, strict control, tight and effective enforcement, and no corruption in all source and consuming countries of the traded species, the laundering of illegal trade products as legal would not form a major threat and consideration. However, the reality is different.

Legal wildlife hunting, trade and ranching are definitely not immune to corruption, illegal activities and the infiltration of criminal elements.

The high financial value of some wildlife hunting derivatives makes these species particularly vulnerable to the involvement of sophisticated criminal elements and syndicates, and sensitive to corruption. The impact of even a few “rotten apples” among legal hunting and trade operators can be devastating to endangered species that are subjected to intensive illegal trade.

Vulnerability of these endangered species is higher in source countries where legislation, control, enforcement and judicial capacities are weak. The existence of legal trade imposes additional challenges and limitations on enforcement and judicial systems in both source and destination countries, and more so in countries with weaker legislation, and weaker enforcement and judicial capacities.

Therefore, legislation in the importing and consuming countries cannot be based only on the situation in several source countries with stronger conservation measures, including capacitated community conservancy structures, but rather must take into consideration the threat that wildlife trade poses to these endangered species in the most vulnerable countries and sites of their distribution, where conservation and enforcement capacities are weak.

Who benefits from legal trade in hunting trophies?

The primary beneficiaries of legal trophy hunting are the professional hunting operators, companies and service providers, as well as related international travel service providers. A large part of legal trophy hunting is performed inside game ranches, where most of the revenues belong to the ranch owners. Governments benefit through licensing.

Local communities are among the beneficiaries in a few countries and in several cases of well-institutionalised benefit sharing with community conservancies where trophy hunting is legally permitted in this context. To a limited extent, local residents may also benefit from related employment opportunities. These jobs are rarely well paid, compared with the revenues and salaries of the hunting operators and their skilled employees, who are not local.

Moreover, these jobs are normally gender-biased and thereby may increase gender inequality in these communities.

It must be honestly said that most local community members in most source countries of species that are subject to legal and illegal hunting and trade do not benefit from legal trophy hunting. Moreover, due to the very limited hunting of iconic species that can be legally permitted within sustainability considerations, and with the decline of many large mammal populations in Africa as a result of a number of causes, there is simply no option that legal trade in hunting trophies would become a sustainable and substantial income source for the majority of community members in all of these species’ range states.

Legal trade in hunting trophies is not and cannot be a major remedy for poverty and unemployment of most rural communities in Africa, including most of the communities that cohabit with endangered and iconic species, and that suffer the costs of conservation and the burden of human-wildlife conflict.

At best, it can be part of the livelihood components of certain rural communities in a few countries where community conservancies are well established, and where specific wildlife populations of these iconic species are and will remain large enough to enable limited sustainable hunting.

Other solutions of sharing the burden of conservation must therefore be prioritised.

Whose values and vision does trophy hunting and trade represent?

Hunting for food has been part of the local subsistence livelihood and tradition in many parts of Africa for many generations. Many rural communities in Africa still practise bushmeat hunting for both subsistence and commercial purposes.

Poverty and limited access to basic social services, education, employment opportunities, and other sustainable livelihoods, are often mentioned as the main drivers for this practice nowadays.

When asked, many rural residents in various parts of Africa, particularly women and young people, clearly express their will to expand the education and employment opportunities that are open to them and their children, way beyond the limited livelihood options they can access now, or that are related to hunting and gathering.

Trophy hunting and trade, on the other hand, represents a mainly colonial practice that was introduced into Africa. Nowadays, most trophy hunting is performed by foreign tourists, and run by professional hunting operators. When governments and legislators in consuming countries ban hunting trophy imports, they represent a current shift in values of their countries’ citizens. This is what they were elected to do.

Call for dialogue

Nevertheless, when, as in this case, legislation in one country can financially or otherwise affect another country, a multilateral dialogue is called for.

Considering that the expected impact of trophy hunting imports on several source countries with well-established community conservancy systems is dramatically different from the impact expected on other source countries of the same species, such a dialogue must encompass locally agreed representation of local communities, ideally from all source countries of the main endangered species that are the subject of the proposed bill.

Joint global responsibility

If there is one thing that the world must take as a lesson from the past two years of Covid-19 and environmental disasters, it is the great need for coordinated collaboration through joint global responsibility.

In this spirit, the UK and other countries may well ban the import and trade resulting from trophy hunting to support conservation globally, but at the same time they are called upon to share the burden of conservation with impoverished rural communities who currently undertake alone the costs of acting as the custodians of endangered species that we all need to survive.

It is therefore proposed here that a joint global responsibility fund for wildlife and communities be established.

Such a fund can be initiated, for example, within a budgetary package of the proposed UK bill, while other countries would be encouraged to join both the ban and the fund. The proposed fund would support custodian communities that cohabit with endangered wildlife species to facilitate their engagement in, and benefits from, conservation, developing long-term education and sustainable livelihood opportunities and capacities, to be identified in accordance with their own vision and goals, and to sustainably mitigate human-wildlife conflict.

In the same spirit of joint responsibility, it is also essential for the several countries in southern Africa that have developed solid wildlife conservation legislation and qualified enforcement and judicial systems – including well-established community conservancy systems – to collaborate with and support other range states of the same endangered species in their efforts to reach the same level of conservation, protection and community engagement capacities.

quote:

Moreover, these jobs are normally gender-biased and thereby may increase gender inequality in these communities.

Oh, so employing the father with one or more wives and a dozen or more kids is not politically correct, so better to employ nobody and give them handouts?

And giving the "Communities" money is going to stop them from killing game that competes with their cows and raids their crops?

And legal trophy hunting somehow enables poaching?

These people are unqualified to make these decisions. "Doctor" or not, they are clueless hacks.

OR my way of saying it…stupid and clueless overeducated fuckers

quote:

Originally posted by boarkiller:
OR my way of saying it…stupid and clueless overeducated fuckers

All these ideas are coming from Boris’s stupid Bimbo.

She has ruined the country with her green policies and hopefully just managed to ruin him too!

A pompous arsehole if there ever was one!

I wonder if they ban trophy hunting throughout Great Britain
After all, it’s all the same, killing wild animals for meat and trophies
Wonder what would all the Lords and game ranchers would say

First World countries telling sovereign nations in the third world how to manage their wildlife resources is Neo-Colonial racism at its' finest!

quote:

First World countries telling sovereign nations in the third world how to manage their wildlife resources is Neo-Colonial racism at its' finest!

Of course, after all the love the animals activists in these first world countries who are all knowing can dictate how third world countries manage their resources. This practice makes the activists feel better about themselves no matter what damage their policies inflict on the third world country's population. What a pathetic bunch!

Don't let it pay for itself, let's hope and plan that governments will ban that and then pay for it through taxes.

Not only will that never happen in the first place, but it wouldn't last even if it did.

These people only experience nature on television.

quote:

Originally posted by Tim Ferrall:
First World countries telling sovereign nations in the third world how to manage their wildlife resources is Neo-Colonial racism at its' finest!

This has been going on for years!

Of course it has, Saeed. We hunters have for too long let the antis control the narrative and the language used. We need, without remorse, to start using the same ugly rhetoric that they use, because unlike them, we are telling the truth!

quote:

Originally posted by Tim Ferrall:
First World countries telling sovereign nations in the third world how to manage their wildlife resources is Neo-Colonial racism at its' finest!

There you have it.

Grizz

Perfect example of what government does:

1. Take something that's financially self-sustaining.

2. Regulate/legislate until it's no longer financially self-sustaining.

3. Take other people's money (NEVER your own) away from them and use that money in effort to fix something that YOU DAMN WELL BROKE- ALL BY YOURSELVES.

4. Never look back to see whether what you've done made the situation better, or worse. Just talk about "all the good we did."

What you need to understand is that in the UK we are in the grip of right wing champagne socialists, and in particular a group of completely unelected individuals who are propping up Boris for their own ends. We have Zac Goldsmith, who is useless enough not to get re-elected in safe Conservative constituency that he has been knighted by his best friend Boris so he has a seat in the House of Lords and can thus bring forward and support legislation. And of course we have Carie. Now lets forget that she is wife No3, has bourne children number 8 and 9 - we think - but Boris will soon get board of her.

The import ban has been through a first reading and is scheduled for a 2nd reading. But by all norms of good governance, moral standards, ministerial codes etc Boris should be on his way out as the only part of the code he hasn’t broken is the paper on which they are written.

However there are so many vested interests around him that are benefiting hugely by his premiership (contracts ti supply Protective equipment during pandemic, appointment of key jobs eyc etc etc) that they will try and keep him in post.

However the Daily Telegraph (or Torygraph as its known) is now giving plenty of column inches to his failings.

But who knows what will happen.

Oh and lets not forget that Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland is spending £35m on contractors shooting deer on the publicly owned land that accounts for 9% of Scotlands land mass. £170 per deer is the going rate being paid to contractors.

quote:

Originally posted by Tim Ferrall:
First World countries telling sovereign nations in the third world how to manage their wildlife resources is Neo-Colonial racism at its' finest!

I think I was the first to say this years ago on AR...

quote:

Originally posted by Heym SR20:
What you need to understand is that in the UK we are in the grip of right wing champagne socialists, and in particular a group of completely unelected individuals who are propping up Boris for their own ends. We have Zac Goldsmith, who is useless enough not to get re-elected in safe Conservative constituency that he has been knighted by his best friend Boris so he has a seat in the House of Lords and can thus bring forward and support legislation. And of course we have Carie. Now lets forget that she is wife No3, has bourne children number 8 and 9 - we think - but Boris will soon get board of her.

The import ban has been through a first reading and is scheduled for a 2nd reading. But by all norms of good governance, moral standards, ministerial codes etc Boris should be on his way out as the only part of the code he hasn’t broken is the paper on which they are written.

However there are so many vested interests around him that are benefiting hugely by his premiership (contracts ti supply Protective equipment during pandemic, appointment of key jobs eyc etc etc) that they will try and keep him in post.

However the Daily Telegraph (or Torygraph as its known) is now giving plenty of column inches to his failings.

But who knows what will happen.

Oh and lets not forget that Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland is spending £35m on contractors shooting deer on the publicly owned land that accounts for 9% of Scotlands land mass. £170 per deer is the going rate being paid to contractors.

get some wolves and bears, it'll be cheaper and in the end you will increase hunting opportunities

https://www.dailymaverick.co.z...igenous-communities/

OUR BURNING PLANET
HUNTING OP-ED

Can a global conservation fund bridge the gap between global finance and the realities for indigenous communities?

By Leslé Jansen and Gail Thomson

22 Feb 2022

We asked community representatives from southern African countries what they thought of Dr Tamar Ron’s plan, first published in Daily Maverick, to replace hunting revenue with a global conservation fund.


The UK government’s proposed legislation to ban the importation of animal parts (or “trophies”) obtained from hunting safaris in other parts of the world has stirred up public debate.

In her opinion piece in Daily Maverick, “Hunting trophy ban must be backed by a global fund to support communities living with wildlife” (31 January 2022) Dr Tamar Ron proposes that hunting and wildlife trade bans should be supported by increased financial support for conservation, aimed specifically at rural communities who live with wildlife.


Her idea of a “global responsibility fund” is premised on the UK government (and others) being willing to replace the income generated from the sustainable use of wildlife with international aid. Unfortunately, this suggestion comes just a few months after the UK announced major cuts to its foreign aid budget, with African nations and climate-related financing set to receive less funding than in previous years. From a UK policy point of view, it seems highly unlikely that anti-hunting legislation will come with any form of significant funding.

It is nonetheless refreshing to see Dr Ron suggest that anti-hunting legislation come with funding, since most anti-hunting organisations and individuals ignore the negative consequences of this action. If the proposed bill came with extra taxes on the British public to support conservation in every country it would affect, it might meet the same resistance as the UK’s green agenda for climate change.

Further, the proposed legislation seeks to restrict hunting everywhere except in the UK. Anti-hunting lobby groups have unashamedly suggested that this legislation would be an “easy win” that need not have any negative consequences for the UK. Dr Ron’s views are therefore more laudable than many others who want to ban hunting.

Aside from whether or not the fund will materialise in the context of current UK politics, there are several key concerns with the proposal that merit a response. Since Dr Ron called for a dialogue with rural communities to find out what kind of funding they would like to see and how such a fund would work, we asked some community representatives from southern African countries what they thought of the plan.



These representatives have experience with various funding models of conservation, including multilateral aid and sustainable use, along with a thorough understanding of the needs in their respective countries and rural communities.

All of the representatives quoted in this article are members of the Community Leaders Network of Southern Africa, an association of community representatives from Angola, Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Hypothetically speaking, if a fund of this nature were set up, it could provide some much-needed assistance to rural communities — especially those that suffer from human-wildlife conflict, yet do not generate any income from wildlife-based industries (e.g. photographic and hunting tourism).

For his part, Malidadi Langa from Malawi “would love to see a fund that focuses on conservation, compensates for human-wildlife conflict, and supports the livelihoods of local communities.” With a high human population density and a recovering wildlife population, hunting is not currently a viable option in Malawi.

Yet even in Botswana, where several communities currently benefit from hunting, Satau Gakemotho points out: “Not all communities are in the wildlife economy value chain, yet they are adversely impacted by human-wildlife conflict.” He continues, “we need funding for meaningful and effective conflict mitigation measures, because increasing wildlife populations are endangering human lives.”

There is clearly a need to plug funding gaps where market-dependent wildlife industries do not generate enough income. Indeed, the needs have increased dramatically in recent years due to the impact of Covid-19 on international travel.

The concept of a global fund was met with some scepticism, however, among those who had experience with similar funding mechanisms. The Green Climate Fund is one such mechanism that is meant to funnel money from developed countries that have caused the climate crisis to developing countries that are bearing the brunt of climate change.

While this is an important initiative, the conditions for accessing this fund are onerous, as Chifundo Dilaleni reflects on Malawi’s experience: “We started the application in February 2018 for $5-million, but until today no funds have been disbursed.”

Joseph Kanyetu of Namibia expressed similar reservations about global funding reaching local communities: “At the end of the day those who are supposed to benefit from these funds get zero.”

Rather than start at the global level and invite people to apply for funding, one could start in places where help is most desperately needed and then scale the concept to a continental level. While philanthropic organisations such as African Parks and the Peace Parks Foundation have stepped in to assist governments with managing state protected areas, much more could be done in areas where people live alongside wildlife.

Critically, this funding should be easy to access for rural people and align closely with their needs. Producing a working model based on locally grounded solutions to challenges faced by rural communities would overcome some of the reservations expressed here.

The gap between global finance and local realities is a technical issue that might be solvable if the proposed new fund operated in an entirely different way to the current examples. Yet the community representatives highlighted a fundamental problem with this proposal that defies technical fixes. This problem goes to the heart of many dealings between the Global North and Global South, and revolves around two closely related issues — dependency and rights.

Elsewhere, these community representatives and others have called for a change in how communities are involved in the use and management of their natural resources. Rather than being mere “stakeholders” they want to become shareholders, whereby they have greater roles and responsibilities in the management of their natural resources.

To this end, they ask that governments (both their own and others) grant and respect their rights to use their resources sustainably. In a significant step in this direction, the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights called on African States to recognise and support these rights in a recent resolution.

On the ground, community members should be trained to take on managerial roles that are currently dominated by outsiders, while community organisations should be able to market their products directly to international visitors without the “middlemen” (e.g. hunting outfitters or tourism companies). Following this pathway would mean communities having a greater share in the income generated by these activities and more control over the management of their natural resources and their relations with international visitors.

Yet the proposed global fund is contingent on communities giving up their rights to use and trade their wildlife on international markets. Rather than moving from stakeholders to shareholders, communities that currently generate income from hunting would become beggars who depend on international generosity.

In the words of Maxi Louis from Namibia, “creating dependency is going backwards, and very patronising.” Liberty Chauke of Zimbabwe neatly summed up this position: “This is a huge trap to hoodwink us from our conservation practices. We need to be careful and focused. That funding is not going to last forever. We just need to subscribe to the principles of sustainable utilisation of our wildlife. It is in light of this position that through sustainable utilisation of our natural resources we can self fund our conservation activities, thereby reducing dependencies.”

Even if the UK and other developed countries massively increased their funding for conservation, these community representatives argued that funding should not come with strings attached that force them to relinquish their rights.

“While we would appreciate any thoughtful financial aid to support conservation management and rural livelihoods, the sovereignty of African nations must still be appreciated and respected,” Dr Rodgers Lubilo from Zambia explains. “We don’t want to further perpetuate external dependence, we have come of age, and we need to do things for ourselves. So yes, establish this fund, but with no conditions regarding hunting. We will develop African-driven actions to ensure that hunting benefits people.”

International governments can either hinder or help African conservation with their policies and funding mechanisms. A blanket ban that restricts the legal, sustainable use of wildlife would be a hindrance. By contrast, policies and funding that assist community-based organisations to become true shareholders in wildlife-based enterprises would be highly appreciated.

In this way, greater benefits could be generated for rural people who conserve their local environment, thus linking a greener future with a brighter future. DM

Leslé Jansen is the CEO of Resource Africa South Africa (RASA) and Gail Thomson is a conservation communications specialist working with RASA. They work closely with the Community Leaders Network of Southern Africa, an association of community representatives from Angola, Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. All of the representatives quoted in this article are members of this association.

I heard the moron has given up on this??