The points made in the Executive Summary are pertinent:

• The Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill, currently before the Lords, is intended to ban the import of hunting trophies from a list of around 6,000 species (as listed in a European Council Regulation now referred to in the Bill as the Principal Wildlife Trade Regulation), although the vast majority of species on this list are not subject to trophy hunting (many are corals and jellyfish).

• Over the last 22 years, the UK has imported hunting trophies from only 73 animal species covered by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) – and thus covered by the Principal Regulation. Trophy hunting does not pose a major threat to any of these species.

• The Bill is problematic for a number of reasons. Key amongst these problems – given that the Bill is intended to support conservation – is that it is likely to undermine conservation success in many countries across Africa and elsewhere.

• Trophy hunting is not a key threat to ANY species, according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) “Red List of Threatened Species” (the globally recognised authority on the conservation status of the world’s wild species).

• For multiple hunted species, even threatened ones, trophy hunting has proven conservation benefits (by reducing far greater threats such as habitat loss and poaching).

• Land on which hunting takes place not only provides habitat for the hunted species, but also for countless animals and plants not subject to hunting. In fact, in Africa there is more land on which trophy hunting is used as a conservation tool than there is for National Parks.

• Undermining the viability of the hunting industry through an import ban, reduces the incentives for Governments, landowners and local communities to:

1. keep land as wildlife habitat rather than converting it to uses such as agriculture;
2. invest in anti-poaching activities; and
3. tolerate dangerous wildlife.

• There are currently no feasible alternative wildlife-based land uses for most trophy hunting areas. Photo-tourism is only viable in select ‘scenic’ areas, where good transport and infrastructure links support a high volume of visitors. The majority of hunting areas will never be viable for photo-tourism. However, hunting can and does in many places coexist with photo-tourism by providing an additional revenue stream.

• The Parliamentary debate surrounding the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill has been driven by extensive misinformation from animal rights activists, backed up by celebrities and social media. In the second reading, for example, over 70% of MPs’ statements were found to be false or misleading. The debate has ignored conservation expertise – even that provided by the UK Government’s own scientific advisory body.

• The UK aiming to ban hunting imports is hypocritical, given that:

1. the UK exports many thousands of hunting trophies every year (particularly from red deer in Scotland); and

2. the UK languishes far, far behind those Southern African countries who will be most affected by this Bill, on conservation performance. The UK is in fact one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world.

• The UK Government has suggested that local communities substitute the income lost as a result of a ban on trophy hunting imports by applying for UK aid grants. But encouraging greater aid-dependency demeans the recipients and contradicts the Government’s own Minister for Development and Africa, who said: “international development is not about charity, handouts and dependency.”

• Rather than apply a blanket ban on the imports of all hunting trophies, a better way forward would be to allow the imports of trophies where it can be demonstrated that hunting makes a positive contribution to conservation and local livelihoods. Imports that do not meet these criteria would be banned, thus rightly disenfranchising poorly managed trophy hunting operations without undermining those which have demonstrable benefits.

• Such an approach is already used by other importing countries, such as the USA, and is in line with the approach that the UK is already able to take under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

• Many Britons dislike trophy hunting, but fewer than half want a ban if that would harm people or conservation. Allowing an amendment would fulfil the Government’s pledge, restrict harmful hunting, but limit the potential risks to livelihoods and

conservation.

The UK’s trophy hunting import ban needs to be a smart ban – an open letter – UPDATED

Dr John Ledger is a past Director of the Endangered Wildlife Trust, now a consultant, writer and teacher on the environment, energy and wildlife; he is a columnist for the African Hunting Gazette. He lives in Johannesburg, South Africa. John.Ledger@wol.co.za

CHALLENGES – In February, the violent extremism in Burkina Faso and the broader Sahelian region spilled over into northern Benin, culminating in three devastating attacks in W and Pendjari national parks. Seven African Parks employees (four rangers, two drivers and the Francophone chief instructor), as well as a Beninese soldier, lost their lives in these incidents.

In the months that followed, attacks continued both in and around Pendjari and W, with several casualties sustained by the Beninese army. We took immediate action to secure our personnel by evacuating staff not involved in park law enforcement activities, reinforcing our bases, and adapting our way of operating. We also met with the President of Benin to discuss our role in W and Pendjari national parks and the challenges we face.

The Beninese Government expressed strong support for our continued management of both parks and committed to providing additional security to create a safer environment in which our staff could operate. The loss of lives to militant attacks in W National Park, in Benin was one of African Parks’ most severe challenges to date.

In Malawi, we lost a ranger in Liwonde National Park and also in Majete Wildlife Reserve. Both deaths were a result of assaults by poachers. These tragic incidents highlight the significant risks faced by rangers in protecting biodiversity, and the critical importance of continued training and equipping our teams to ensure they can conduct their work in as safe a manner as possible.

In addition, our organisation-wide death and disability benefit goes some way to reducing the economic burden incurred by the dependents of our employees killed

in the line of duty. As poor governance, poverty and climate change leads to increased tension and pressure on natural resources, it becomes increasingly important that we retain consistent and positive engagement with local communities to build strong partnerships and relationships. In this way we reduce the likelihood for friction in these challenging environments.

Early in the year, Cyclone Ana wreaked havoc across much of Malawi. Majete Wildlife Reserve and Liwonde National Park experienced extreme flooding and extensive damage to infrastructure. Thankfully, no human lives were lost in the parks, and the few animals which escaped were retrieved. African Parks also supported national relief efforts with helicopter transport to inaccessible areas as well as food provision and medical support to affected communities.

Given the scale of our operations, it’s inevitable that we’ll be faced with difficult and heart-breaking incidents every year. We take each of these challenges as an opportunity to learn and improve our management in all areas under our responsibility so that, where possible, we can prevent them from happening again.

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION – Again this year we undertook major feats in translocating wildlife to ensure range expansion and population increases for Africa’s most vulnerable species. In January and February, we moved over 900 buffalo from Zakouma National Park to Siniaka-Minia Wildlife Reserve in Chad – the largest-ever buffalo translocation to take place. Despite some losses, the project was largely successful and once additional infrastructure is in place, a second phase will occur in 2024.

At the end of July, we concluded our second-largest elephant translocation to date: moving 263 elephants from Liwonde National Park to Kasungu National Park in Malawi. In addition, 431 other animals were moved from Liwonde to Kasungu and 947 to Mangochi Forest Reserve and Nkhotakota Wildlife Reserve. In April, we welcomed our first rhino calves from the 30 White Rhino that had been moved from South Africa to Akagera National Park in Rwanda in 2021.

COMMUNITY – The African Parks team now consists of 4,273 full-time employees, 97% of whom are nationals. In addition, we continue to support thousands of local, part-time workers. Our ranger team grew to over 1,430 individuals and in September, teams from across the parks – from the desert of Iona in Angola to the flooded plains of Zakouma in Chad – participated in the 21km Wildlife Ranger Challenge. This annual event raises awareness for the role that rangers play in conservation, not just on the frontline in protecting biodiversity, but also as conservation ambassadors, teachers and community support workers.

Our community work across the parks continued to impact the lives of thousands of people. Today, over 27,500 people are benefitting from sustainable livelihood initiatives supported by the parks including beekeeping, fisheries, agroforestry, guiding cooperatives, and training in livestock husbandry, veterinary assistance, and sustainable farming practices. This year, 53,000 people were treated by African Parks-supported hospitals and clinics; over 9,600 adults and children received environmental education and more than 2,400 scholarships were provided. More than 5,000 community meetings were held to keep stakeholder communication channels open and engage on socio-economic initiatives, education and human wildlife conflict challenges.

One particular highlight for 2022 was the official opening of the Gishanda Fish Farm outside Akagera National Park in Rwanda, in collaboration with FoodTechAfrica. Supported by the Rwandan and Dutch governments, Gishanda uses sustainable methods of farming Tilapia to provide a much-needed protein source for communities. Through the construction of the fish farm 111,000 fingerlings were released to restock Lake Gishanda; two villages were electrified; a primary school built for 370 students; eight permanent jobs and regular casual jobs created; and a community-run organic vegetable farm established using the grey water from the fish farm. In addition to being a first for us at African Parks, it has been a great learning opportunity and is an excellent example and a sound benchmark for a sustainable circular economy that benefits communities and biodiversity.

TOURISM – We experienced impressive growth in visitor numbers across most parks, with a 30% increase in revenue compared to pre-Covid-19 levels. Some parks noted their best performances to date, and we are encouraged by the continued support from local tourist markets. Akagera National Park achieved record earnings of US$3,7 million, Nyungwe National Park US$780,000 and Majete Wildlife Reserve US$650,000.

Every dollar earned by a park remains in the park, and goes towards the management of conservation and community initiatives associated with protected area management.

Dr John Ledger is a past Director of the Endangered Wildlife Trust, now a consultant, writer and teacher on the environment, energy and wildlife; he is a columnist for the African Hunting Gazette. He lives in Johannesburg, South Africa. John.Ledger@wol.co.za