Online Reporter
Business Reporter
THE Safari Operators Association of Zimbabwe (SOAZ) has warned that proposed trophy import bans by France and potentially across the European Union (EU) threaten Zimbabwe’s conservation model, rural communities and tourism economy.
This reaction follows unilateral European decisions to halt the import of legally harvested wildlife trophies.
Safari tourism serves as a major engine for Zimbabwe’s overall travel and hospitality sector.
While the broader tourism sector generates over US$1,2 billion annually, safari tourism specifically injects hundreds of millions of dollars directly into wildlife management, conservation and rural communities.
SOAZ president Dr Emmanuel Fundira said Western policies targeting legal hunting threaten to dismantle the financial ecosystem that protects wild animals and their natural habitats across Southern Africa.
At the heart of the submission is SOAZ’s argument that the international discussion must shift away from moralising hunting to evaluating how to keep wildlife economically viable for the local communities that co-exist with high-risk species.
“The issue is not simply about hunting trophies. It is about whether wildlife retains enough economic value to justify protecting habitat and supporting communities that live with wildlife,” Dr Fundira said.
He emphasised that legal, regulated hunting operates under a science-based framework, combined with scientifically determined quotas and professional oversight, making it distinct from poaching or unchecked illegal trade.
“Legal, regulated hunting should not be equated with poaching or illegal wildlife trade,” Dr Fundira said, noting the contrast between “scientifically managed harvesting and uncontrolled exploitation”. Revenues generated from legal hunting directly fund local rural infrastructure, including roads and water access, and finance wildlife ranger units, anti-poaching operations and broad rural supply chains.
He said rural households living on the margins of national parks bear severe operational and personal costs from their proximity to dangerous game, including crop destruction, livestock losses, bodily injury and death.
Human-wildlife conflict cases in Zimbabwe escalated sharply from 1 654 recorded in 2024 to 2 090 in 2025.
Without direct economic incentives derived from wildlife utilisation, local communities lose the financial compensation needed to offset these risks. Dr Fundira outlined a compounding chain reaction that could follow any blanket European import bans, illustrating how import restrictions lead to fewer hunters, reduced safari revenue and diminished community and conservation funding.
Wildlife then loses economic value, leading to habitat loss and animal decline.
He noted that photographic tourism cannot easily replace hunting revenues because both industries serve very different geographic areas.
“Hunting and photographic tourism should be complementary, rather than presented as competing conservation philosophies,” he said, emphasising that remote or densely vegetated landscapes require different wildlife-use models to remain economically viable.
Dr Fundira expressed concern over extraterritorial decision-making by European capitals that bypasses African range states, urging Western nations to respect local sovereignty and environmental governance.
“Policies affecting African wildlife should involve range states and the communities living with wildlife, rather than being determined solely by distant consumer countries,” he said.
To counter European policy shifts, Dr Fundira recommended a comprehensive strategic response by the Government centred on an immediate diplomatic outreach to France before restrictions are formally adopted.
The strategy involves building a unified coalition of African range states utilising sustainable wildlife models, while granting representatives from affected rural communities a direct platform in international advocacy forums.
Furthermore, Zimbabwe must compile robust scientific data detailing the impact of import restrictions on species populations, anti-poaching budgets and livelihoods, while inviting European lawmakers to observe these systems firsthand.
The response, he said, required a unified national position involving Government ministries, the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (ZimParks), the Zimbabwe Tourism Authority, the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE), rural district councils, conservancies, scientists and private operators.
Dr Fundira said that Zimbabwe’s defence of its wildlife management strategy is grounded in measurable outcomes rather than unyielding ideology.
“Zimbabwe is not asking the world to accept unsustainable hunting. It is asking that wildlife policies be judged by science, evidence, community welfare and measurable conservation outcomes,” he said.
“Restrictions on legal, sustainable trophy imports could unintentionally undermine the very conservation, community and habitat systems that international wildlife policy seeks to protect.”
Wildlife trophies and sport hunting contribute millions of dollars annually to Zimbabwe’s economy, funding anti-poaching units, park management and rural development through programmes like CAMPFIRE.
