WAPFSA OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED HUNTING/EXPORT QUOTA FOR ELEPHANT, BLACK RHINOCEROS AND LEOPARD HUNTING TROPHIES FOR THE 2024 and 2025 CALENDAR YEAR

EXCERPTS FROM THE WAPFSA SUBMISSION:

  1. WAPFSA hereby official submits our official objection to the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment’s invitation for written representations or objections to the Proposed Hunting/export quota for Elephant, Black Rhinoceros and Leopard Hunting Trophies for the 2024 and 2025 Calendar Year published as Notice Number: 5583 in the Government Gazette on the 22nd November 2024. 
  2. We note that this objection will be published and will be collated into a comment and responses report which will be made available to the public as part of the consultation process. 
  3. The Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa (WAPFSA) is a national network of 30 South African organizations that was explicitly set up and designed as a vehicle to engage with government on wildlife issues and to put wild animals onto the political agenda, based on ethical and compassionate conservation and harmonious coexistence within nature. 
  4. WAPFSA members share clearly articulated principles that are part of our Founding Document, initiated in 2016. Our common goal is to safeguard and protect wild animals and their welfare and well-being, as well as biodiversity, individual species, individual animals and the interests of vulnerable people. 

CITES: “Nationally established export quotas should as far as possible, be communicated at least 30 days before the start of the period to which the export relates”. 

5. A calendar year is defined as the twelve-month period between January and December of any given year. 

6. It is of great concern that a public consultation regarding the hunting/export of elephant, leopard and black rhino trophies for the 2024 Calendar Year has been initiated on the 22 day of the eleventh month of this 2024 calendar year. 

7. This leaves 9 days of the 2024 calendar year remaining after the closure of the public consultation period, after which the Minister is required to give “due consideration” to the public representations received. 

8. No explanation for this choice of timing has been provided. This timing is out of step with the CITES recommendations which provide that “nationally established export quotas should as far as possible, be communicated at least 30 days before the start of the period to which the export relates”.

8. 1 Management of Nationally Determined Export Quotas, https://cites.org/eng/res/14/14-07R15.php 

9. The publication of a quota for the 2024 calendar year so late in the year is in our opinion, unfair, unreasonable and irrational, and could be grounds for the setting aside of the current consultation process under section 6(2)(h). of PAJA. 

Section 99 of NEMBA: “Public Participation Process sufficient information must be provided to enable members of the public to submit meaningful representations or objections” 

10. As stated in the gazetted notice, the invitation for the submission of representations on the proposed 2024 and 2025 quota was issued in terms of sections 99 and 100 of NEMBA. These provisions set out the public consultation requirements for the Minister’s exercise of power under NEMBA. 

11. Section 100(2)(b) sets out that notice of a public participation process under section 99 of NEMBA must contain “sufficient information to enable members of the public to submit meaningful representations or objections”. 

12. The Gazetted Notice of consultation on the 2024 and 2025 proposed quota contains no quota figures. 

13. In addition, because of the absence of the inclusion of the findings of the Scientific Authority and the rationale for the trophy hunting quota for black rhinoceros, leopard or elephant it is impossible for any member of the public to meaningfully interrogate or engage with the proposed 2024 or 2025 quota. This is both a material flaw in terms of section 100(2)(b) of NEMBA and under PAJA. 

CITES Appendix I or Appendix II: Lack of Non-Detriment Findings 

14. Further, the non-detrimental findings of the Scientific Authority, for the black rhinoceros, leopard of elephant are not even referred to nor provided in the Gazetted Notice. 

15. These scientific findings should be confirmed as non-detrimental in relation to CITES Appendix I or Appendix II species which asserts that a restricted activity (such as trophy hunting and export) of these species will not be detrimental to the survival of the species in question. 

16. Leopards and Black Rhinoceros are listed under CITES Appendix I while African Elephant populations in South Africa are listed under CITES Appendix II. All three species are also listed in the Lists of Threatened and Protected Species (TOPS) under the Threatened and Protected Species Regulations published in terms of section 56 of NEMBA (with leopards being listed as “vulnerable”; black rhinoceros as “endangered” and African Elephant as “protected”. 

17. Section 62 of NEMBA refers to the publication of “Annual non-detrimental findings” which must be published in the Government Gazette allies to all three of these species. This is in line with the CITES recommendation that a “non-detriment finding should be made whenever an export quotas is established for the first time or revised, and reviewed annually.”

18. It is of material concern that hunting/export quotas for elephant, leopard and rhinoceros have been set in the absence of a current gazetted non-detriment finding in relation to these species in the current or preceding calendar year. 

Conclusion: Procedurally unfair, unreasonable and irrational in terms of PAJA 

19. Considering the points set out above, WAPFSA is of the opinion that this consultation process constitutes unlawful, procedurally unfair, unreasonable and irrational administrative action in terms of PAJA. 

20. As the protection of South Africa’s wildlife is a matter of public interest, the Minister’s exercise of power quotas and initiating a flawed public consultation process constitute a breach of the South African public’s right to adequate public participation in matters that affect them, the right to just administrative action in of section 33 of the Constitution and the right to have the environment protected through legislative and other means in terms of section 24 of the Constitution. 

21. The proposed quota and the consultation process should therefore be withdrawn. “

Image Credit: ©EMS Foundation 2024

©WAPFSA 2024. All Rights Reserved.

WAPFSA WELCOMES PRESIDENT DUMA BOKO TO OFFICE AND FORMALLY REQUESTS HIS CONSIDERATION FOR RE-IMPOSING THE BAN ON ELEPHANT HUNTING IN BOTSWANA

FOR THE ATTENTION OF HIS EXCELLENCY, DUMA BOKO, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOTSWANA

19th November 2024

Dear Mr President Duma Boko,

A RESPECTFUL REQUEST TO RE-IMPOSE THE BAN ON ELEPHANT HUNTING IN BOTSWANA

The Wildlife Animal Protection Forum South Africa (WAPFSA) is a coalition of South African wildlife and environmental non-governmental organisations, please accept our warmest congratulations on your election as Botswana’s President. We hereby extend our best wishes for your success as you prepare to take up the responsibilities and challenges of this high office.

WAPFSA firmly believes that Botswana is one of the last places on earth where wildlife, especially elephants exist in significant numbers.  Therefore, we believe that Botswana should be preserved as a non-trophy hunting area.  As you embark on your new responsibilities WAPFSA humbly requests that you consider re-imposing the ban on elephant hunting in Botswana.

This ban would restore Botswana’s international reputation for conservation and in turn bolster revenue from tourism, the second largest source of foreign income after diamond mining.  WAPFSA does not believe that by banning the trophy hunting of elephants that the levels of human elephant conflict will increase.

 Instead, we believe that the world needs to find ways to make sure that communities living alongside this important, precious and iconic world heritage, benefit from photographic tourism and successful non-consumptive schemes, which link the conservation of wildlife and the natural ecosystems with sustainable improvements in their livelihoods.     

Elephants, known for their intelligence, size and distinct appearance face a major threat from poaching an illegal practice driven by the demand for ivory and other elephant products.  They remain the one of the most heavily poached mammals in the world, with a staggering 90% of African elephants being killed by poachers within the last 100 years.

WAPFSA remains concerned, particularly given that peer-reviewed data by experts points to a rise in thepoaching and killing of elephants for the trade in ivory, that the previous government of Botswana used aninflated figure (up to 237,000 elephants) to justify the need to consider unbanning trophy hunting and culling.

IUCN/PACO research shows that photographic safaris or eco-tourism creates 39 times more jobs than the trophy hunting for the equivalent surface area Photographic conservation tourism industry is the second largest revenue-generating industry to Botswana’s fiscus. If implemented these recommendations will do untold harm to the lucrative non-consumptive, eco-tourism sector in Botswana. They pose a direct threat to sustainable livelihoods in Botswana as well as to the country’s international reputation.

The following facts are also important to bear in mind:

1. A report published in October 2024 highlights a catastrophic 73% decline in the average size of global wildlife populations in just 50 years reveals a ‘system in peril’.

2. Given that we are in the midst of the Sixth Extinction and that elephant numbers are rapidly decreasing, the plights of elephants is of concern to all, and the efforts to ensure their future should be shared by all. 

3. Elephants are extremely complex beings with physical, social and psychological   interests who have intrinsic value and deserve respect. 

4. Elephants are important to maintaining the ecological integrity of the region and thus we have locus standi in the matter. 

5. The maintenance of regional ecological integrity is a pillar of our societal survival, ecologically, economically and socially. 

6. Elephant migration routes are key in supporting ecological integrity and corridors   for wildlife are vitally important for natural systems to exist and enable the movement of elephant populations out of Botswana. 

7. South Africa had to abandon its elephant culling model because it was discredited from a scientific and a biodiversity management perspective 

8. Botswana’s support for the ivory trade, via its proposal to the CITES Cop 18, fly in  the face of the global momentum to reduce consumer demand for ivory and run counter to the recommendation in Resolution Conf.10.10. (Rev. CoP17) which calls for closure of domestic ivory markets contributing to poaching or illegal trade. 

There is no compelling, empirical evidence of the economic significance of trophy hunting or that it is imperative to the future of conservation and to generate local community benefits. Moreover trophy hunting and culling are an added threat to wildlife.

In conclusion, WAPFSA firmly believes based upon irrefutable scientific evidence that trophy hunting and culling are not solutions to, nor will they mitigate, human- animal-conflict and will in fact result in increased conflict and added dangers to communities. Disrupting elephant social structures and hierarchies through trophy hunting and culling will further exacerbate human-elephant-conflict and also destroy social andecological knowledge and experience in the elephant societies. 

The extent of human-elephant-conflict needs to be accurately ascertained and humane, innovative and collaborative solutions implemented in ways that benefit, and are a win- win for, communities and elephants (and other animals).

Signed by Members of the Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa

Image: ©EMS Fondation 2024.

©WAPFSA 2024. All Rights Reserved.

A ONE SIDE APPROACH TOWARDS WILDLIFE CONSERVATION?

https://www0.sun.ac.za/awei/events/2024-10/african-wildlife-consultative-forum

https://www.awcfinfo.org/

 The members of WAPFSA are concerned that the DFFE is closely aligning itself with a US based trophy hunting advocacy organisation – Safari Club International (SCI) in formulating policies on the conservation of African wildlife. 

DFFE appears to be adopting a one-sided policy on ramping up the commercialisation and consumptive use of wildlife by actively collaborating with SCI, the world’s largest trophy hunting organisation. 

The annual African Wildlife Consultative Forum (AWCF) is the SCI Foundation’s premier activity in Africa. The annual meeting brings together professional hunting associations, hunting and conservation organisations, and range state government officials. The meeting will take place in Stellenbosch from 28 Oct – 1 Nov 2024. 

The discussions are to centre on expansion of consumptive wildlife economies in Africa – and particularly southern Africa. While the promotion and expansion of trophy hunting activities will be the primary focus, the meeting aims to lend support to the increase in monetising wildlife utilisation. Trophy hunting and trade in wildlife body parts such as ivory and rhino horn are regarded as key to the expansion of such economies. 

Of concern, is that the discussions are held in private with approximately a dozen southern African governments attending. That these talks are shrouded in secrecy means that the approach by SCI is designed to influence government policy without the attendance of other organisations that hold a different approach to wildlife conservation. 

Members of WAPFSA wrote a letter of concern to Minister Dion George raising the question of whether the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment was adopting a one sided approach to wildlife conservation.

PLEASE READ THE LETTER:

©WAPFSA 2024. All Rights Reserved.

CONCERN REGARDING THE ELEPHANT HUNTING INCIDENT IN BALULE NATURE RESERVE

The Wildlife Animal Protection Forum South Africa (WAPFSA), consists of a community of diverse South African-based organisations who share similar values, knowledge and objectives.  WAPFSA collectively offers a formidable body of expertise and advocacy drawn from different sectors, including but not limited to, scientific, environmental, legal, welfare, rights, social justice and indigenous knowledge. 

Member organisations of the Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa have written an open letter to Minister Barbara Creecy, amongst others, highlighting their concerns about an elephant hunt which took place in Balule Nature Reserve, in Limpopo Province of South Africa on the 3rd September 2023.

The Balule Nature Reserve forms part of the Associated Private Nature Reserves, (APNR), an association of privately owned nature reserves bordering the Kruger National Park (KNP). The fences were dropped in 1993 – before the end of apartheid – on the premise of creating ‘ecological unity’ between the APNR and the KNP itself. Commercial hunting, in the 1996 agreement, was not mentioned at all. Animals under public custodianship (KNP) now move freely between the APNR and the KNP. Far from creating ecological unity, however, they are treated as res nullius (nobody’s property) in the APNR and are hunted. South African National Parks (SANParks) has never addressed this problem.

The elephant bulls that are commercially trophy hunted in the Balule Nature Reserve form part of South Africa’s national heritage but they are being killed for the benefit of a small number of wealthy white landowners as the amount of money actually accruing to local communities remains unknown. 

On Sunday the 3rd of September 2023, a bull elephant was shot and wounded by a trophy hunter in the Maseke area of the Balule Nature Reserve. Obviously, the traumatised and injured elephant attempted to get away. He left the Maseke area and went into the neighbouring Grietjie Private Nature Reserve. The deputy head warden of Maseke initiated a search for the elephant with a helicopter.  The elephant was located and driven back to Maseke using the helicopter where he was killed. 

According to Mr Ian Novak the General Manager of Balule Nature Reserve, the elephant hunt was legal and no Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area Reserve Protocol violations were committed.

Maseke is a region located within the Balule Nature Reserve.  Maseke Game Reserve, Balule Nature Reserve and Grietjie Nature Reserve all form part of the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area Reserve. 

The Greater Kruger Hunting Protocol was developed and endorsed by signatories which included representatives from South African National Parks, Limpopo Economic Development, Environment and Tourism and Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agencies.   The number of elephants that are allowed to be hunted annually is determined by the Associated Private Nature Reserves ecological panel and reviewed and then endorsed by SANParks and the Limpopo Economic Development, Environment and Tourism Biodiversity. 

Many international visitors to South Africa, and to the Kruger National Park, are unaware that the hunting of elephants is permissible.  The Kruger National Park was named as one of the World Wonders on the new list which was published on the 14th of September 2023.  “A listing that reveals global landmarks and natural marvels that the world is most curious about.”  The Kruger National Park forms part of the UNESCO Kruger to Canyon Biosphere Reserve. 

The fences separating all the Associated Private Nature Reserves and the Kruger National Park were dropped to reduce fragmentation, facilitate migration and increase space for wildlife and access to resources, in other words, to increase the well-being of animals. The perennial Olifants River flows for approximately 20 km through the centre of the Balule reserve and, for example, elephants cross Maseke into Grietjie to access the river. 

The killing of this particular elephant was described as being upsetting to some and not an ideal situation. Of major concern is that this is not the first time that there has been a controversial elephant hunt on Maseke.  On the 23rd November 2018, Sharon Haussmann, the then chairperson of Balule, initiated a full investigation after an elephant was shot thirteen times in front of guests. Sharon Haussman described that incident as completely unethical, inconsiderate and a huge embarrassment for Balule.   

In the APNR, current and historical mismanagement, breaches of the Greater Kruger Hunting Protocols, and sometimes even negligence during trophy hunts, reflect not only badly on the hunting fraternity, but also on the photographic safari or eco-tourism sector in the Greater Kruger National Park and South Africa as a whole. Some examples include:

  1. Early 2005, an elephant hunted in the Klaserie was shot 21 times before it succumbed.
  2. In June 2005, an American hunter wounded an elephant in Balule, but only killed it 24 hours later.
  3. In March 2006, a lion, one of a well-known pair known as the “Sohebele brothers” was shot and wounded in the Umbabat, but the hunter was unable to kill the animal, as its brother refused to leave the scene. The hunter later repeatedly drove a tractor at the lions in an attempt to separate them but failed. The lion was killed by rangers only the following morning.
  4. Later that month, a large, one-tusked male elephant was shot and wounded by a Spanish hunter in the Umbabat, believed to have fled into the KNP and was not found since.
  5. March 2013, an elephant was shot in the very close proximity to Ingwelala’s eastern boundary. The wounded elephantl ran directly south towards Motswari Lodge and was followed by the hunting party, who continued to fire 20+ shots before it was finally killed in the close proximity to the lodge with many guests. Motswari Lodge was never informed that this hunt was to take place and was caught completely off-guard. The effect on their guests and staff was devastating.
  6. In August 2018, a scheduled elephant hunt conducted in Balule led to the illegal killing of a collared male elephant. Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Authority (MTPA) laid criminal charges and the warden was subsequently convicted.
  7. In December 2018, a young elephant was shot multiple times in Balule in front of photographic safari tourists staying at a neighbouring property.

After the latest unfortunate hunting incident, the General Manager of Balule stated that : “Hunting is never an exact science and no matter how many targets a client shoots at before the hunt, there is never any guarantee that he will make the perfect shot when faced with the real thing. The nature of a hunt is unpredictable and this is not a reflection on the capabilities of the Maseke Reserve Representative.

WAPFSA is ethically opposed to the hunting and killing of any animal for sport or pleasure.  WAPFSA has openly challenged claims made by proponents of trophy hunting that it delivers significant conservation and community benefits or that it positively contributes to the sustainable use of wildlife in South Africa.

WAPFSA has previously highlighted how trophy hunting is rooted in colonial modes of extraction which continues to perpetuate notions of abuse, subjugation, control and inequality. Dr Muchazondida Mkono’s research[1] has found that trophy hunting is an objectionable consequence of a complex historical and postcolonial association.  Africans have a deep resentment towards what is viewed as the neo-colonial character of trophy hunting, in the way it privileges Western elites in accessing Africa’s wildlife. 

WAPFSA also opposes trophy hunting based on scientific evidence. In relation to elephants, research challenges the assumptions by trophy hunters that selectively killing older male elephants has no negative consequences because they are “redundant” in the population. Elephants are sentient beings who live socially complex lives through relationships which radiate out from a mother-offspring bond through families, clans, and sub populations. Independent males form long-term friendships. Elephants communicate through more than 300 gestures, complex speech and glandular secretions. They contemplate, negotiate, collaborate, plan and are aware of death. They care about their lives. The  killing of older males has a detrimental effect on the wider elephant society through loss of leaders crucial to younger male navigation. In addition, when trophy hunters eliminate these older bulls, they destroy elephant family integrity (through trauma and removal of the discipline and knowledge transfer functions executed by patriarchs) and force matriarchs to mate with younger bulls they would otherwise not have selected, thereby skewing reproduction patterns. 

According to the General Manager of the Balule Nature Reserve, Maseke is permitted to kill twelve elephants per year, a practise which he states will continue, and one which is, in their opinion, in line with the constitution of South Africa. 

However, in terms of NEM:BA, the South African government is entitled to make policy decisions in relation to contentious and damaging practices, decisions that are in the public interest, prioritising public opinion and the economic benefits of the public.  

NEM:BA includes the notion of “well-being”, which is defined as the “holistic circumstances and conditions of an animal, which are conducive to its physical, physiological and mental health and quality of life, including the ability to cope with its environment.” The consideration of the well-being of animals must be included in the management, conservation and sustainable use thereof”. 

The entirely new section, 9A in NEM:BA, empowers the DFFE Minister to prohibit certain activities “that may negatively impact on the well-being of an animal […]” and create new offences “relating to non-compliance with s9A”; S101, then, refers to accountability of “person who contravenes or fails to comply […]” 

It is our considered view that well-being falls within DFFE and the Minister’s legal mandate. The amendment to section 2 makes it necessary for well-being to be specifically considered, including when permits are granted, including those for hunting and all decisions that constitute “management, conservation and sustainable use” of animals.

S9A is widely drafted and applies to any activity, including hunting, as well as any other activities not so defined, provided there was reasonable evidence of a potential negative impact on wellbeing. S9A also uses the wording “that may have a negative impact” which means that the Minister is not required to provide absolute proof of a negative impact before making a prohibition. 

Given the above amendments to NEM:BA, it is competent for the Honourable Minister to: 

  1. Prohibit specific activities involving animals under s9A on the basis that there is already evidence that the activities impact negatively on wellbeing; and/or 
  2. Publish a notice under section 9A prohibiting specific activities if there is reasonable evidence to support the view that this may have a negative effect on well-being;
  3. Make regulations relating to the well-being of animals under s97; and/or
  4. Challenge decisions of conservation officials which constitute administrative action (such as permitting decisions or the setting of quotas) on the basis that well-being is a relevant factor and has not been considered or on the basis that the decision would have a negative impact on the well-being of an animal or animals.

The aforementioned letter from the General Manager of Balule concluded that the hunt was conducted in accordance with the requirements and approved protocols. Have the representatives from South African National Parks, Limpopo Economic Development, Environment and Tourism and Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agencies taken the amendments to NEM:BA into consideration, are their approved protocols compliant with the national legislation and particularly with the duty of taking into account the well-being of animals in any hunt?

WAPFSA is aware that there is an ongoing court case, which seeks to challenge hunting and export quotas permitted by the government, in the Western Cape High Court. In light of this legal challenge, the undesigning members of WAPFSA are requesting Minister Creecy to: 

  1. Investigate if permits to hunt twelve elephants were issued, as specified in the letter from the Balule administration, despite the interim interdict. 
  2. Revoke permits and halt any further hunt of elephants as well as rhinos, leopards and lions as per interdict, 
  3. AS this is not the first incident, withhold hunting permits to the Maseke-based hunting entity involved; and 
  4. Finally address the complex issue of trophy hunting as it is allowed in certain unfenced reserves of the APNR and elsewhere, and is incompatible with individual animal and species’ well-being considerations. 

[1] Mucha Mkono (2019) Neo-colonialism and greed: Africans’ views on trophy hunting in social media, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27:5, 689-704, DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2019.1604719

Image Credit: EMS Foundation, an elephant in the Kruger National Park February 2023

©WAPFSA 2023. All Rights Reserved.

UNITED KINGDOM HUNTING TROPHIES IMPORTANT PROHIBITION BILL LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER RISHI SUNAK

The Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa (WAPFSA) wishes to express our deep concern that time is running out for the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill, which carries overwhelming public support and would fulfil a government manifesto commitment, to become law. 

The Bill’s Committee Stage in the House of Lords has yet to be scheduled, and with the current parliamentary session due to end in November, there is a real danger that the Bill will run out of time. Lords Hamilton and Mancroft have also tabled amendments which would fatally weaken the Bill. 

WAPFSA is a community of diverse South African-based organisations that share certain values, knowledge and objectives and that collectively comprise a body of expertise from different sectors including but not limited to scientific, environmental, legal, welfare, rights, social justice, indigenous and public advocacy backgrounds.

The undersigned organisations and community representatives are widely supported by wildlife conservationists across the African continent and beyond and would like to take this opportunity to share our African perspective on the negative impacts of the commercialisation, advertisement and sale of trophy hunts of African endangered and protected species with you. 

Countries across Europe have acknowledged the fact that trophy hunting has little connection with conservation, on the 13th of December 2022 the Finnish Parliament approved a new nature conservation law that includes the banning of imports of hunting trophies from endangered species. 

The Finnish Nature Conservation Act will enter into force on the 1st of June 2023. In 2015 France specifically banned the import of lion trophies. In 2016 the Netherlands banned the import of hunting trophies of over 200 hundred species. In March 2022 the Belgium Parliament adopted a resolution urging the government to immediately end the authorisation of trophy import permits for certain threatened and endangered species. 

Scientists tell us that removing male mammals from their populations can increase the risks of species extinction. By selecting the most impressive, largest, most rare, usually male, that is usually the strongest and fittest in order to become the best trophy (largest tusks and thickest manes), trophy hunters affect reproductivity thereby weakening populations’ genetic health and variation, dislocating the surviving members of the group’s social structure, disrupting bonds and behaviours.  

“Hunting Africa, Trophy Hunting, Neo-colonialism and Land” is an investigative report written by Professor Sian Sullivan, in which she confirms Safari Club International World Hunting Award Field Journal dedicates more pages to Africa than any other continent.  “These figures clearly show the dependence of the trophy hunting industry on securing access to Africa’s hunting grounds. Given that the hunting industry claims to African lands requires removal of African peoples and constraints on local production practices, it arguably promotes and extends colonial patterns of enclosure.

Trophy hunting is rooted in colonial modes of extraction that perpetuate notions of abuse, subjugation, control and inequality, including gender inequality Dr Muchazondida Mkono’s research[1] has found that trophy hunting is an objectionable consequence of a complex historical and postcolonial association.  Africans have a deep resentment towards what is viewed as the neo-colonial character of trophy hunting, in the way it privileges Western elites in accessing Africa’s wildlife. 

Proponents of trophy hunting argue that trophy hunting provides vast economic opportunities for local communities whereas, in truth, the economic benefits of big game hunting are wildly exaggerated and pale in comparison to the economic possibilities of eco-tourism. Yet, according to a 2013 study by Economists at Large, only 3% of the revenue generated by trophy hunting remains with local communities in Africa. In addition, hunting quotas are often set according to economic interests and market demand rather than population abundance and are not based on scientific data or standards. 

In reality, trophy hunting is an elitist hobby for millionaires and billionaires who pay huge fees to kill large exotic and rare animals. Cash-strapped and corrupt governments in developing countries allow the colonialist sport to continue. According to a Report by Good Governance Africa, compared with tourism, trophy hunting provides very little benefit.  The Report also questions whether the legally sanctioned killing of wild animals can be reasonably tolerated. 

When there is a conflict between humans and large wildlife in Africa, this conflict is managed in fruitless ways that only have the purpose to generate revenue within the strict elite circle of the trophy hunting industry, without solving the conflict issue. Alternative, science-based, non-invasive, cost-effective methods are scraped out because of the constructed idea that trophy hunting has to be part of any conservation protocol. 

Projects that offer optimal alternatives to trophy hunting, in terms of improving the livelihoods of local communities, based on regenerative, climate-resilient practices and alternative conservation activities that reject and avoid violence, subjugation and extraction in favour of more ecologically sustainable and dignifying activities exist in countries in Africa, including Tanzania, South Africa, Namibia, MalawiZimbabweZambia, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Lesotho, Angola, Botswana, Eswatini, and Madagascar. 

These practices promote fair share and equity, women and youth empowerment and self-sufficiency. These projects focus on improving farming productivity and food security via climate-smart agricultural practices they encourage economic development and wildlife coexistence and resilience. We are aware that these often activities struggle to flourish because of the competition with extractive, immediate-reward models and sectors which are plagued with corruption and nepotism as the hunting sector. 

In Namibia, for example, more than 95% of trophy hunts are conducted on private land and only about 2 per cent in communal conservancies.[1] Hardly any financial revenue is derived from trophy hunting in these communities. Governments are not interested 

In monitoring if revenues are allocated fairly. Furthermore, many locals feel excluded from the benefits their wildlife offers, since trophy hunting is a privilege of wealthy foreign tourists, while they themselves are mostly prohibited to hunt for subsidence. So instead of promoting economic independency and ensuring the livelihoods of local communities, trophy hunting deepens inequality and consolidates social injustice. 

In July 2022, in a joint position statement on Trophy Hunting, 171 animal protection organisations, including 51 NGOs from Africa, asked for trophy hunting to be banned. 

A recently published survey indicated that in South Africa the opposition to trophy hunting has increased from 64% in 2020 to 68% in 2022.  The survey included data sourced from a diverse South African demographic across all provinces. The key findings from the IPSOS survey include:

  • 68% of South Africans fully oppose or oppose to some extent the practice of trophy hunting – an increase from 56% in a similar 2018 survey.
  • 65% of South Africans fully oppose or oppose to some extent the practice of canned lion hunting – an increase from 60% in a similar 2018 survey. 
  • 64% of South Africans disagree with the trophy hunting of elephants, rhinos, and leopards.
  • 63% of South Africans disagree with the trophy hunting of lions.
  • 66% of South Africans disagree with the trophy hunting of hippos.
  • 60% of South Africans disagree with the trophy hunting of giraffes.
  • Regarding the 2022 hunting and export quotas announced by the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) in February 2022, 63% oppose the quota for 150 elephants, 62% oppose the quota for 10 black rhinos, and 61% oppose the quota for 10 leopards.

World Animal Protection recently commissioned research into public attitudes towards trophy hunting, surveying 10,900 people from around the world, including international tourists from countries who most frequently visit  Africa. The research confirmed that international tourists want to see wildlife-friendly experiences and an end to trophy hunting. Tourists want to see wildlife alive and thriving and protected in a humane and ethical manner.  

study by the World Travel & Tourism Council confirmed that wildlife is worth more alive than deadAnother study of eight African countries by economists concluded that overall, tourism which relies heavily on wildlife contributed between 2.8% and 5.1% of GDP, and foreign trophy hunters made up less than 0.03% of the same GDP on average. Similarly, photo safaris, in comparison, allowed for sustainable, lucrative tourism activities without killing wildlife.The International Union for the Conservation of Nature Ethics Specialist Group wrote to the German government to ask for an end to the practice of trophy hunting imports for ethical, ecological and legal reasons. Professor Klaus Bosselmann, chair of the aforementioned group, said: “Trophy hunting unnecessarily threatens the survival and genetic integrity of protected species in the midst of the current crisis of the sixth mass species extinction. It is overdue that Germany, as the largest importer of hunting trophies in the EU, takes action.” Members of WAPFSA congratulate the German Ministry of the Environment, Steffi Lemke’s, announcement of their intention to restrict the import of hunting trophies from protected species in Germany.

WAPFSA also welcomed the announcement by IEG Italian Exhibition Group SpA in 2022 to discontinue Italy’s largest hunting fair in Vincenza in light of the fact that the event was incompatible with environmental values.  

As one of the countries directly associated with the outdated colonial practice of trophy hunting, the United Kingdom has an obligation as well as an opportunity to take leadership position on this matter.

While some members of the scientific fraternity do support the old-styled trophy hunting model, it is true that this scientific fraternity is largely funded by trophy hunting outfitters, including Safari Club International. While we understand the arguments based on commercial justification for prolonging these colonialist practices, WAPFSA recognises that these arguments do not represent Nature’s best interests, which are calling for more respectful alternatives in support of responsible biodiversity management. These models do already exist, some of which are detailed in this submission.

The United Kingdom has a real opportunity to take a firm stand against the trophy hunting industry. WAPFSA, therefore, urges you to fulfil your government’s commitment by ensuring that the Bill is given sufficient parliamentary time to pass into law during the current parliamentary session and that any amendments aimed at weakening the Bill are robustly opposed. 

1 Mucha Mkono (2019) Neo-colonialism and greed: Africans’ views on trophy hunting in social media, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27:5, 689-704, DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2019.1604719

2 C. MacLaren, J. Perche & A. Middleto, The value of hunting for conservation in the context of the biodiversity economy. REPORT – available at the link 2019-06-Hunting_report.pdf (resmob.org)

©WAPFSA 2023. All Rights Reserved.

SPEAKING OUT AGAINST TROPHY HUNTING PRIOR TO THE JAGD UND HUND, EUROPE’S LARGEST HUNTING FAIR

Jagd und Hund Hunting Fair in Dortmund, Germany (Image Credit worldanimalsvoice.com 2022)

AN AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE ON THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF THE COLONIAL-STYLED COMMERCIALISATION OF ENDANGERED WILDLIFE SPECIES ADVERTISED AT JAGD UND HUND, IN DORTMUND IN GERMANY

24TH – 29TH JANUARY 2023

Advertised is the largest most prestigious shopping paradise for hunters, the 41st Jagd Und Hund is a trade show held annually in Dortmund in Germany, this year the show will be take place from the 24th to the 29th of January 2023.

Tens of thousands of animals are hunted and killed by hunters who pay handsomely for this pleasure. Many European and British citizens are losing the appetite to continue to support or participate in the colonial sport of trophy hunting.

This is an open letter written to the Mayor of Dortmund which has been signed by members of WAPFSA, members of the Pro Elephant Network and endorsed by a number of world renown wildlife conservationists, wildlife veterinarians, international dignitaries, politicians and environmental lawyers.

Please find the OPEN LETTER:

Image Credit: https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2021/06/22germany-your-hunting-and-dog-shame/

©Wildlife Animal Protection Forum South Africa 2023. All Rights Reserved.

WAPFSA INFORMS EUROPEAN POLITICIANS ABOUT RECENT SURVEY AND STUDIES ON THE SUBJECT OF TROPHY HUNTING IN SOUTH AFRICA

WAPFSA members appreciate the concerns of European politicians and decision-makers, with regard to supporting the implementation policies that might negatively affect developing countries such as South Africa.

The Care2 Petition titled “It’s Time to Ban Trophy Hunting in South Africa” has 432 635 supporters.
https://www.thepetitionsite.com/en-gb/200/628/320/its-time-to-ban-trophy-hunting-in-south-africa/

WAPFSA members were recently offered the opportunity to address the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety.

WAPFSA used this opportunity to share, amongst other, the results of surveys recently conducted which reflect the view of South Africans on the subject of trophy hunting in South Africa.

A IPSOS Survey commissioned by the animal protection charity Humane Society International Africa revealed that 68% of the South African population oppose trophy hunting and the majority oppose the practise of canned lion hunting. The survey reported only on local data sourced from a diverse South African demographic across all provinces.

 WAPFSA members reminded the German Federal Ministry representative about the fact that trophy hunting is rooted in colonial modes of extraction which perpetuate notions of abuse, subjugation, control and inequality, including gender inequality.

WAPFSA members referred to Dr Muchazondida Mkono, whose research focuses on sustainable tourism and ethical tourism including wildlife tourism, environmentalism, tourism impacts and air travel. Dr Mkono states that existing studies on the trophy hunting controversy in recent years have largely represented the anti-hunting views of the Western public, while overlooking the opinions of African people.

Her research has found that trophy hunting was objectionable as a consequence of its complex historical and postcolonial associations−the dominant pattern was resentment towards what was viewed as the neo-colonial character of trophy hunting, in the way it privileges Western elites in accessing Africa’s wildlife. The growing concerns in relation to trophy hunting include its social, environmental and economic impacts. Trophy hunting artificially selects the biggest and strongest animals (largest tusks and thickest manes), weakening populations’ genetic health and variation. Research also suggests that increasing selectivity of trophy hunting is strongly associated with an increasing risk of extinction. Trophy hunters target the largest, strongest individuals. Killing the lion pride male, the matriarch of the elephant herd, big males or irreplaceable tuskers results in social dislocation in the surviving members of the group, disrupting social bonds and behaviours. Trophy hunting undeniably damages the structure and viability of wild populations of animals.

WAPFS referred to a 2022 Report by Good Governance Africa (GGA), a South African not-for-profit organization whose mandate focuses on research and advocacy to improve governance across Africa, questioned whether the South African government had grounds to determine trophy hunting quotas and whether they should promote trophy hunting as a conservation tool on economic grounds. In addition to Economists at Large, Paksi and Pyhälä and Koot, the Report argues that trophy hunting does not play an important role in the economic development of African communities.

Furthermore, WAPFSA members included the details of a study by the World Travel & Tourism Council which confirmed that wildlife is worth more alive than dead. In another study conducted in eight African countries by economists, it was concluded that, tourism which relies for the most part, on wildlife contributed between 2.8% and 5.1% of GDP, and foreign trophy hunters made up less than 0.03% of the same GDP on average. Similarly, photo safaris, in comparison, allowed for sustainable, lucrative tourism activities without killing wildlife.