Mbeza response on 9 Jan 08 to ZAWA Board/SHOAZ proposals...

MBEZA SAFARIS RESPONSE TO:
SAFARI HUNTING OPERATORS’ ASSOCIATION OF ZAMBIA (SHOAZ) REPORT ON 8 JANUARY 2008 (RE PAYMENTS 2008 SEASON) RESULTING FROM TALKS WITH THE ZAMBIA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY BOARD.

The following is the position of the board:
1) The lease agreement is not cast in stone and can be amended at any time to suit current conditions.
COMMENT MBEZA SAFARIS:
It can, and must be, so as to accommodate the quota/safari category requirements - with the agreement of the tripartite partners

2) They are not in the least intimidated by the threat of legal action by outfitters.
COMMENT MBEZA SAFARIS
At all times the procedure between the partners should be followed as laid out in the Hunting Concession Agreement (HCA): 1) good faith negotiations, followed if necessary by 2) mediation, and then 3) arbitration – the latter presumably under the auspices of the Arbitration Commission. Should these fail it is a matter for the courts. Unfortunately, these procedures have not been followed by all parties in the past, nor at the present – with current court actions (Leopard Ridge v ZAWA) being prejudiced by nationalization of the Leopard Ridge concession.

3) The board contend that as outfitters themselves identify the quota that they require at their annual quota setting meetings, they should be able to utilize and pay for 100% of this quota.
COMMENT MBEZA SAFARIS
The Board is under a misapprehension. Outfitters do not identify the quota that they require – albeit this being the present trend. I quote from my review of hunting in Zambia:
“When hunting finally resumed in 2003, the offtake quotas provided by ZAWA in the first year of the new ten-year leases were, according to ZAWA, influenced by a number of factors - in addition obviously to the pre 2002 quotas; these were the feedback from resident and established citizen hunting returns in 2002, but chiefly, by the needs of the lease agreement and the 2003 ZAWA financial budget so as “…to ensure that numbers of species provided meet the minimum requirements for both classical and mini safaris”, concessionaires being required to meet these on pain of the loss of a $50 000 surety deposit, or the cancellation of their concessionary agreement. Although ZAWA admitted that wildlife had decreased considerably due to poaching and that few GMAs had been censused, they gave a contradictory justification for a quota increase of between 5 and 15% based on “the abundant state of the species” and also, “on the assumption that:
1. The hunting blocks were successfully allocated to bidding safari companies
2. Logistics for law enforcement are made available
3. Funds were secured for aerial counts and monitoring
4. As a result of the above animal populations will increase or stabilize.”

In the first year of the old leases in 2003, only 30% of the quota was utilized; in part being due to the fact that six Prime areas did not function due to litigation.”

Quota meetings are held in the season prior to the quota setting – actually in the busiest hunting period. In Mbeza’s first year under new ownership, we workshopped the quota over a full day, only to discover that when Chilanga issued the quotas they bore no relation to the agreed quota. In 2006, the MD of Mbeza was not invited to the quota meeting, nor the Chairman of the Luembe CRB, and the other director, on safari at the time, was given one day’s notice to attend, clearly an impossibility. In 2007 we did not operate due to legal issues, but again were not invited to a quota meeting. Quotas are, in any event, not something which the operator has – or should have, control of. He may make his submissions, which, together with the inputs of the CRB and ZAWA, should be followed by Chilanga. If the operator is to set a quota i.e. a sustained yield quota – without it fulfilling reasonable scientific standards, then it should be properly called an allocation. What is missing from all of this is a monitoring system which will ensure that only the older age classes are being taken. The allocation therefore becomes a guide only for the benefit of ZAWA, who may from this deduce their income, and therefore their cash-flow. I find it worrying that the Board appear to be assuming powers they do not have. This is not about policy, this is about management and sound science.

4) With the above in view and taking in to account our objections they have asked us to give them a counter proposal.
5) We suggest that you consider a proposal along the lines of the quota being split into a 60% fixed quota and 40% optional quota.
COMMENT MBEZA SAFARIS
Fine, if based on what the operator and his CRB consider to be reasonable. In Mbeza’s case, this would require ZAWA to meet other conditions (see my previous submission)

6) The 60% financial quota would be paid in 3 instalments and the optional quota paid for as and when used.
COMMENT MBEZA SAFARIS
Agreed

7) The current animal deposit would fall away.
COMMENT MBEZA SAFARIS
Agreed

8) We will suggest removing the 50% surcharge on 2nd. animals.
COMMENT MBEZA SAFARIS
Agreed

9) We will also suggest removing the time and animals restriction currently in place for mini safaris.
COMMENT MBEZA SAFARIS
Agreed

10) Oufitters can revisit their quotas if necessary.
COMMENT MBEZA SAFARIS
Agreed. We require the timing of this.

11) Specialized and understocked areas will be exempt from the above and will negotiate separate arrangements with ZAWA.
COMMENT MBEZA SAFARIS
Why? Quotas are quotas, whatever the area. I can see no reason why they should be exempt.

I.P.A. Manning
MD
Mbeza Safaris
9 January, 2008.