Cecil threatens African wildlife conservation

ELLANIE SMIT

WINDHOEK



The Conserving Ecosystems by Ceasing the Importation of Large Animal Trophies (Cecil) Act, currently being considered by the United States Congress, will threaten successful wildlife conservation efforts in African countries.

This is according to Maxi Louis, the director of the Namibian Association of Community-Based Natural Resource Management Support Organisations, which represents 86 conservancies and more than 200 000 people. In an opinion piece first published online by insidesources.com, Louis said she has serious concerns.

The proposed law is named after Cecil, the Zimbabwean lion whose killing with a bow and arrow by a professional American game hunter in 2015 caused global uproar.

“This (proposed law), carrying the lion's name, would prohibit American hunters from importing animals harvested through legal, regulated hunting. This would dramatically disincentivise Americans from patronising hunting outfitters across Africa,” she said. According to Louis , the Cecil Act would rob African countries and local tourist economies of irreplaceable revenue that currently funds multifaceted and successful wildlife programmes.



Human-wildlife conflict

“Since most Namibian wildlife roam freely outside national parks, human-wildlife conflict drives many of the problems our communities face and that we deal with as conservationists,” Louis said. She said this conflict is a major threat to conservation because it incentivises more poaching.

“Without deriving an economic benefit from the presence of wildlife, farm and ranch land will encroach on more habitat, spurring on more human-wildlife conflict and resulting in poaching.”

Louis said Namibia's regulated system of hunting breaks this cycle by changing people's perception of wildlife from a threat to an asset.

She added it is no secret that international tourist hunters pay thousands of dollars to hunt strictly selected specimens in Namibia.

This money is mostly reinvested into conservancies and funds critical infrastructure, creating employment opportunities and even direct payment compensation to farmers who suffered losses.



Well-managed hunting system

Namibia is therefore able to more broadly tackle both habitat loss and poaching, she said.

“As a result of a well-managed, legal hunting system, our country has been able to maintain 86 conservancies that contribute to conservation efforts on Namibian land and equals almost 50% of the country.”

Louis added that by increasing wildlife's monetary value, landowners see the protection of their land for wildlife habitats as financially competitive with agriculture development. However, if the Cecil Act were to become law, all these systems that have improved wildlife populations across southern Africa will crumble, she said. According to her, this is supported by a comprehensive biological study done by Robin Naidoo in 2015, which showed that a simulated ban on hunting significantly reduced the number of conservancies that could cover operating costs. It also indicated that failing to incorporate hunting into a conservancy strategy would reduce the value of wildlife as a competitive land use option and have grave repercussions for the viability of community-based conservation in Namibia.



Colonial mentality

“Despite these proven results, many in America and throughout the West insist on pushing legislation like the Cecil Act that tells Africans that we are wrong in how we manage our wildlife and that we must do things differently. “This is a colonial mentality that completely ignores our on-the-ground reality and our right to sustainable development.”

Louis said the officials behind the Act know that while hunting may be unappealing to them, it is an industry that cannot be replaced with something like photo-tourism that requires easily accessible terrain and infrastructure, uncommon in rural Namibia.