Notice of Suspension of Imports of Zimbabwe Elephant Trophies Taken in 2014 on or After April 4, 2014, 44459-44461 [2014-18013]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 2014 / Notices
California for the purpose of enhancing
the species’ survival.
Permit No. TE–094318
Applicant: Jessica S. Vinje, Escondido,
California
The applicant requests a permit
renewal to take (locate and monitor
nests) the least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii
pusillus) in conjunction with nest
monitoring activities throughout the
range of the species in California for the
purpose of enhancing the species’
survival.
Permit No. TE–104080
Applicant: Stephen A. Sykes, Roseville,
California
The applicant requests a permit to
take (harass by survey, capture, handle,
and release) the California tiger
salamander (Santa Barbara County DPS
and Sonoma County DPS) (Ambystoma
californiense) in conjunction with
surveys and population monitoring
throughout the range of the species in
California for the purpose of enhancing
the species’ survival.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Permit No. TE–43668A
Applicant: Gerald T. Braden, Angelus
Oaks, California
The applicant requests a permit
renewal to take (harass by survey, locate
and monitor nests, capture, band, colorband, release and remove brown-headed
cowbird [Molothrus ater] eggs and
chicks from parasitized nests) the
southwestern willow flycatcher
(Empidonax traillii extimus); take
(locate and monitor nests, color-band,
release and remove brown-headed
cowbird eggs and chicks from
parasitized nests) the least Bell’s vireo
(Vireo belli pusillus); take (harass by
survey) the light-footed clapper rail
(Rallus longirostris levipes) and Yuma
clapper rail (Rallus longirostris
yumanensis); and take (capture, handle,
and release) the San Bernardino
Merriam’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys
merriami parvus) and the Stephens’
kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi) in
conjunction with nest monitoring
activities throughout the range of each
species in California for the purpose of
enhancing the species’ survival.
Permit No. TE–094642
Applicant: Howard B. Shaffer, Los
Angeles, California
The applicant requests a permit
amendment to take (conduct training
workshops) the California tiger
salamander (Santa Barbara County DPS
and Sonoma County DPS) (Ambystoma
californiense) in conjunction with
training activities throughout the range
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:56 Jul 30, 2014
Jkt 232001
of the species in California for the
purpose of enhancing the species’
survival.
Permit No. TE–027422
Applicant: Brian T. Pittman, Petaluma,
California
The applicant requests a permit
renewal to take (capture, collect, and
collect vouchers) the Conservancy fairy
shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio),
longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta
longiantenna), Riverside fairy shrimp
(Streptocephalus woottoni), San Diego
fairy shrimp (Branchinecta
sandiegonensis), and vernal pool
tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi),
and take (capture, handle, mark and
release, collect tissue or small
individuals for genetic analysis, and
collect voucher specimens) the
California tiger salamander (Sonoma
County DPS) (Ambystoma californiense)
in conjunction with survey and
population monitoring activities
throughout the range of each species in
California for the purpose of enhancing
the species’ survival.
Public Comments
We invite public review and comment
on each of these recovery permit
applications. Comments and materials
we receive will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the address
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
notice.
Before including your address, phone
number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Michael Long,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific Southwest
Region, Sacramento, California.
[FR Doc. 2014–18012 Filed 7–30–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–HQ–IA–2014–N156;
FXIA16710900000–145–FF09A30000]
Notice of Suspension of Imports of
Zimbabwe Elephant Trophies Taken in
2014 on or After April 4, 2014
AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ACTION:
44459
Notice.
On July 17, 2014, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
made a determination that the import of
sport-hunted African elephant trophies
taken in Zimbabwe on or after April 4,
2014, until December 31, 2014, would
be suspended. The decision to suspend
importation of African elephant trophies
taken in Zimbabwe was due to the
Service being unable to determine that
the killing of the animal whose trophy
is intended for import into the United
States would enhance the survival of the
species in the wild. Due to technical
revisions needed to address an editorial
error and to reflect consideration of
ETIS data from the 16th Meeting of the
Conference of Parties to CITES
unintentionally left out of the July 17
finding document, the July 17 document
was revised on July 22. These technical
revisions did not alter the analysis or
decision announced in the July 17
finding. This 2014 determination
supersedes the interim suspension
published in the Federal Register on
May 12, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Timothy J. Van Norman,
Chief, Branch of Permits, Division of
Management Authority, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS: IA, 5275 Leesburg
Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803; fax
(703) 358–2280; or email DMAFR@
fws.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Timothy J. Van Norman, (703) 358–2104
(telephone); (703) 358–2280 (fax);
DMAFR@fws.gov (email).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
African elephant (Loxodonta africana)
is listed as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq., and is regulated
under a special rule found at 50 CFR
17.40(e). The special rule includes
specific requirements for the import of
sport-hunted trophies. Under paragraph
17.40(e)(3)(iii)(C), in order for the
Service to authorize the import of a
sport-hunted elephant trophy, the
Service must find that the killing of the
animal whose trophy is intended for
import would enhance the survival of
the species in the wild (an
‘‘enhancement finding’’).
Zimbabwe has had an active elephant
hunting program for over 20 years, and
imports into the United States have
occurred at least since 1997, when the
Zimbabwe elephant population, along
with populations in Botswana and
Namibia, was downlisted to Appendix II
of the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES) (South Africa’s
population was downlisted at a later
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM
31JYN1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44460
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 2014 / Notices
date). When the population was
downlisted, the Service published a
Federal Register notice that
acknowledged that, because Zimbabwe’s
elephants were an Appendix-II
population, no U.S. import permit
would be required to import trophies,
but we did state that, in accordance
with the special rule under the ESA, the
requirement for an enhancement finding
would continue to apply (62 FR 44627;
August 22, 1997). In that Federal
Register notice, we stated that, in
making the required enhancement
finding for the import of sport-hunted
trophies, the Service would review the
status of the elephant population and
the total management program for
elephants in each country to ensure that
the program was promoting the
conservation of the species. The Federal
Register also noted that the Service
would make such findings on a periodic
basis upon receipt of new information
on the species’ population or
management. If, based on new
information, the conditions of the
special rule were no longer met, the
Service explained that it would publish
a notice in the Federal Register of any
change.
On April 4, 2014, the Service
announced an interim suspension of
imports of sport-hunted elephant
trophies taken in Zimbabwe during the
2014 season. This finding was revised
on April 17, 2014, primarily to clarify
that the suspension applied only to
elephants hunted on or after April 4,
2014. This determination was
announced in the Federal Register on
May 12, 2014 (79 FR 26986). The
decision to establish an interim
suspension of imports of elephant
trophies from Zimbabwe was due to the
Service having insufficient information
on the status of elephants in Zimbabwe
as well as Zimbabwe’s current elephant
management program to make an
enhancement finding.
Although African elephant
conservation issues have received
significant attention within CITES over
the last 10 or more years, the Service
has limited information on elephant
management programs, efforts to control
poaching, and the effects of legal
hunting in Zimbabwe. While the Service
was aware of a 1997 national elephant
management plan, we were not aware of
any updates to the plan, or whether an
adaptive management approach had
been taken in implementing the plan. In
2007, the Service sent a letter to the
Parks and Wildlife Management
Authority of Zimbabwe (ZPWMA)
requesting additional information.
While we did receive some information
at that time, we had not received any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:56 Jul 30, 2014
Jkt 232001
additional updates directly from
Zimbabwe since then.
Service representatives met in person
with representatives from Zimbabwe at
various times in the past 6 years, but
again, little new or additional
information was obtained. As stated,
because African elephants have received
a significant level of attention from the
CITES Parties (member nations),
including the United States, the Service
had received information on African
elephants in Zimbabwe from documents
produced for CITES meetings or for
other CITES-related activities. However,
this information was focused more on
the ivory trade and poaching, with less
about regulatory mechanisms in place
that would allow for appropriate
management (including sport hunting)
of elephants, sustainable utilization of
elephants, and how elephant
management is integrated into human
communities to reduce human-elephant
conflicts and support elephant
populations.
On April 4, 2014, the Service sent a
letter to Zimbabwe with a number of
questions regarding the status of
elephants in Zimbabwe and the hunting
program. On April 17, 2014, the
Director-General of ZPWMA sent a
response (herein referred to as ZPWMA
response) to the Service inquiry. Several
weeks later, the Service received a
number of documents, copies of
Zimbabwean laws, and other supporting
documentation that was referenced in
the ZPWMA response. In addition, on
June 6, 2014, the Service received
additional supporting information from
a U.S.-based conservation and hunting
non-governmental organization (NGO).
The Service has also received a number
of comments from individuals and
associations connected to the hunting
industry in Zimbabwe or southern
Africa.
Zimbabwe’s current national elephant
management plan consists of primarily
two documents: The Policy and Plan for
Elephant Management in Zimbabwe
(1997) and Elephant Management in
Zimbabwe, third edition (July 1996).
Although the documents provide a welldeveloped list of goals and objectives,
there is no information in these
documents on how to achieve or fulfill
these goals and objectives, nor do there
appear to be any subsequent updates of
the documents or reports that provide
any indication of progress on fulfilling
these management goals and objectives.
Without management plans with
specific goals and actions that are
measurable and reports on the progress
of meeting these goals, the Service
cannot determine if ZPWMA is
implementing the well-articulated, but
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
general, goals and objectives that appear
in Elephant Management in Zimbabwe
and The Policy and Plan for Elephant
Management in Zimbabwe. Overall,
ZPWMA did not provide, and the
Service otherwise does not have, any
information indicating that Zimbabwe is
implementing, on a national scale,
appropriate management measures for
its elephant populations.
According to the IUCN SSC African
Elephant Database report 2013 Africa,
the elephant population in Zimbabwe in
2007 was 99,107, of which 85 percent
(84,416) was classified as ‘‘definite’’ and
only 0.3 percent (291) was classified as
‘‘speculative.’’ While the total
population in 2012 was estimated at
100,291, only 47 percent (47,366) was
classified as ‘‘definite’’ and 45 percent
(45,375) were classified as
‘‘speculative.’’ According to this report,
half of the population estimates
included in 2012 is older than 10 years,
resulting in a degradation of the quality
of data. Very few new surveys have been
conducted since 2007, and of those
conducted, they only covered a small
percentage of the overall population.
While the Zimbabwe government
continues to state that elephant
population estimates exceed 100,000
elephants, this number is clearly based
on outdated information.
Without current population estimates
and a better understanding of the offtake
from other sources, such as poaching,
culling, and problem animal control, it
is not possible for the Service to
determine if the total offtake exceeds
recommendations made in Zimbabwe’s
management document, Elephant
Management in Zimbabwe, that no more
than 0.75 percent of all males in the
population should be removed
annually. With the reliability of current
population estimates, it is not possible
to evaluate if the current export quota of
500 elephants should be adjusted. There
is currently a multi-national effort, the
Pan African Elephant Aerial Survey, to
conduct aerial surveys across most of
the African elephant’s range in 2014,
including Zimbabwe. The survey will
provide a more definitive estimate of
Zimbabwe’s population, along with a
more robust carcass ratio (number of
carcasses observed compared to the
number of live elephants counted). In
conjunction with data that will come
from efforts carried out under the
CITES’ project, Monitoring the Illegal
Killing of Elephants, a better
understanding of the population
dynamics within Zimbabwe can be
developed. However, to provide
accurate estimates, the Pan African
Elephant Aerial Survey would have to
be conducted using standardized survey
E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM
31JYN1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 2014 / Notices
protocols that incorporate modern
technological improvements, including
the use of the latest technological
advancements such as voice-data
recordings and geo-referenced digital
photographs of all elephant and carcass
sightings.
The Zimbabwean Parks and Wild Life
Act has established the regulatory
mechanism for the ZPWMA and its
programs, and also provides for
substantial penalties for the unlawful
possession of or trading in ivory. In
addition, the General Laws Amendment
Act (No. 5) of 2010 provides for
mandatory imprisonment of not less
than 9 years for poaching. If properly
enforced, it appears these penalties
would be a sufficient deterrent for
poachers. However, based on the
information the Service currently has,
we do not have a good understanding of
the ZPWMA’s annual operational
budget, how much money is generated
by elephant hunting, or how these funds
(or the lack of these funds) impacts the
ability of ZPWMA to adequately
implement the Parks and Wild Life Act
or to carry out day-to-day management
activities or anti-poaching efforts. In
January 1996, the Government of
Zimbabwe approved the establishment
of the Parks and Wild Life Conservation
Fund, a statutory fund responsible for
financing operations directly from
wildlife revenues. However, revenues
generated through sport hunting
conducted on State and private lands
are primarily used to finance ZPWMA,
and only limited additional funding is
available from appropriated funds from
the Zimbabwe government or outside
funding from NGOs. A 2002 Panel of
Experts, formed in connection with
CITES, raised concerns as to the status
of ZPWMA relating to its weak financial
base, lack of management skills,
inadequate and old equipment, and
poor infrastructure. No new information
relevant to these concerns was provided
by ZPWMA or other sources as a result
of the Service’s April 4 inquiry. We
have no current information as to the
funding level of ZPWMA or any
indication that the financial base,
management skills, equipment, or
infrastructure have improved.
According to information provided to
the Service, Zimbabwe has
methodology, including participation
from a number of stakeholders, for
establishing annual hunting quotas for
all areas of the country. While the
methodology is based on sound wildlife
management principles used globally,
the Service did not receive specific
information on how these quotas are
established, whether other forms of
offtake, such as poaching and problem
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:56 Jul 30, 2014
Jkt 232001
animal control, were taken into account,
or to what degree biological factors are
taken into consideration (as opposed to
economic and societal considerations).
The current quota-setting process
utilized by ZPWMA may actually be a
very effective system that takes into
consideration all of these issues;
however, without documentation of the
system, the Service cannot determine if
sport-hunting quotas are reasonable or
beneficial to elephant populations and,
therefore, whether sport hunting is
enhancing the survival of the species.
In 1989, Zimbabwe established the
Communal Areas Management
Programme for Indigenous Resources
(CAMPFIRE) to encourage reduction in
human-elephant conflicts through
conservation-based community
development and to provide an
economic incentive to improve
community tolerance of wildlife,
including elephants. The CAMPFIRE
program has been the model for
community-based conservation efforts
in several other African countries and
has been identified as an innovative
program in the past. However, the
CAMPFIRE program has come under
criticism relating to excessive retention
of generated funds by district councils,
which resulted in diminished benefits
being realized by the communities it
was designed to help. Information
supplied by the CAMPFIRE Association
to the CITES Panel of Experts in 2002
indicates that this situation may be
improving. The information that was
provided to the Service does not,
however, support or refute this
statement. Under a community-based
conservation program, like CAMPFIRE,
rural communities should benefit from
revenue generated by sport hunting.
With increased human-elephant
conflicts on Communal lands, sport
hunting may be an important tool that
gives these communities a stake in
sustainable management of the elephant
as a natural and economic resource and
provides the enhancement that would
meet the U.S. criteria for authorizing
imports of trophies. However, without
current information on how funds are
utilized and the basis for hunting
offtake, the Service is unable to confirm
this assumption.
It should be stated, however, that
there are clearly ‘‘bright spots’’ of
elephant conservation efforts being
carried out by non-governmental
entities and individuals scattered
around Zimbabwe that are providing a
benefit to elephants. Individual safari
outfitters and landowners have
established their own management
efforts, including anti-poaching
activities, on areas under their control,
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
44461
either through ownership of the land or
leases. These entities have made
significant strides to ensure the longterm survival of elephants on their
lands. These efforts, however, can and
have been adversely affected by
unilateral or seemingly arbitrary actions
taken by the Central government or
Rural District Councils, such as past
land redistribution activities, that
minimizes their conservation efforts.
These ‘‘bright spots’’ are not numerous
enough, in and of themselves, to
overcome the problems currently facing
Zimbabwe elephant populations or to
support a finding that sport hunting
throughout Zimbabwe would enhance
the survival of the species.
Without current data on population
numbers and trends, government efforts
to manage elephant populations, efforts
to address human-elephant conflicts
and poaching, and the state of the
hunting program within the country, the
Service is unable to make a finding that
sport hunting in Zimbabwe is enhancing
the survival of the species and that
imports of trophies would meet the
criteria established under the ESA for
African elephants. The July 17, 2014
enhancement finding (subsequently
revised on July 22 to correct technical
errors) has been posted at https://
www.fws.gov/international/pdf/
enhancement-finding-July-2014elephant-Zimbabwe.PDF. In addition,
the press release announcing the
suspension and frequently asked
questions is available on the Service’s
Web page (www.fws.gov/international).
This suspension does not prohibit
U.S. hunters from traveling to
Zimbabwe and participating in an
elephant hunt. The ESA does not
prohibit take (e.g., hunting) outside the
United States; it only prohibits import
of trophies taken during such hunts
without authorization under the ESA.
Therefore, it is also possible that
hunters who hunt in Zimbabwe on or
after April 4, 2014, could import their
trophies at a later date if the Service can
determine in the future that such
imports meet the criteria under the ESA.
Further, this decision does not affect
elephants taken in Zimbabwe prior to
the Service’s April 4, 2014, decision.
Elephants hunted in previous hunting
seasons are also still eligible to be
imported, provided all CITES and
import regulations are met.
Dated: July 24, 2014.
Brenda Tapia,
Program Analyst/Data Administrator, Branch
of Permits, Division of Management
Authority.
[FR Doc. 2014–18013 Filed 7–30–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM
31JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44459-44461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18013]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-HQ-IA-2014-N156; FXIA16710900000-145-FF09A30000]
Notice of Suspension of Imports of Zimbabwe Elephant Trophies
Taken in 2014 on or After April 4, 2014
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On July 17, 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
made a determination that the import of sport-hunted African elephant
trophies taken in Zimbabwe on or after April 4, 2014, until December
31, 2014, would be suspended. The decision to suspend importation of
African elephant trophies taken in Zimbabwe was due to the Service
being unable to determine that the killing of the animal whose trophy
is intended for import into the United States would enhance the
survival of the species in the wild. Due to technical revisions needed
to address an editorial error and to reflect consideration of ETIS data
from the 16th Meeting of the Conference of Parties to CITES
unintentionally left out of the July 17 finding document, the July 17
document was revised on July 22. These technical revisions did not
alter the analysis or decision announced in the July 17 finding. This
2014 determination supersedes the interim suspension published in the
Federal Register on May 12, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Timothy J. Van Norman, Chief, Branch of Permits, Division of
Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: IA, 5275
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; fax (703) 358-2280; or
email DMAFR@fws.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy J. Van Norman, (703) 358-2104
(telephone); (703) 358-2280 (fax); DMAFR@fws.gov (email).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The African elephant (Loxodonta africana) is
listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq., and is regulated under a special rule found at 50 CFR
17.40(e). The special rule includes specific requirements for the
import of sport-hunted trophies. Under paragraph 17.40(e)(3)(iii)(C),
in order for the Service to authorize the import of a sport-hunted
elephant trophy, the Service must find that the killing of the animal
whose trophy is intended for import would enhance the survival of the
species in the wild (an ``enhancement finding'').
Zimbabwe has had an active elephant hunting program for over 20
years, and imports into the United States have occurred at least since
1997, when the Zimbabwe elephant population, along with populations in
Botswana and Namibia, was downlisted to Appendix II of the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) (South Africa's population was downlisted at a later
[[Page 44460]]
date). When the population was downlisted, the Service published a
Federal Register notice that acknowledged that, because Zimbabwe's
elephants were an Appendix-II population, no U.S. import permit would
be required to import trophies, but we did state that, in accordance
with the special rule under the ESA, the requirement for an enhancement
finding would continue to apply (62 FR 44627; August 22, 1997). In that
Federal Register notice, we stated that, in making the required
enhancement finding for the import of sport-hunted trophies, the
Service would review the status of the elephant population and the
total management program for elephants in each country to ensure that
the program was promoting the conservation of the species. The Federal
Register also noted that the Service would make such findings on a
periodic basis upon receipt of new information on the species'
population or management. If, based on new information, the conditions
of the special rule were no longer met, the Service explained that it
would publish a notice in the Federal Register of any change.
On April 4, 2014, the Service announced an interim suspension of
imports of sport-hunted elephant trophies taken in Zimbabwe during the
2014 season. This finding was revised on April 17, 2014, primarily to
clarify that the suspension applied only to elephants hunted on or
after April 4, 2014. This determination was announced in the Federal
Register on May 12, 2014 (79 FR 26986). The decision to establish an
interim suspension of imports of elephant trophies from Zimbabwe was
due to the Service having insufficient information on the status of
elephants in Zimbabwe as well as Zimbabwe's current elephant management
program to make an enhancement finding.
Although African elephant conservation issues have received
significant attention within CITES over the last 10 or more years, the
Service has limited information on elephant management programs,
efforts to control poaching, and the effects of legal hunting in
Zimbabwe. While the Service was aware of a 1997 national elephant
management plan, we were not aware of any updates to the plan, or
whether an adaptive management approach had been taken in implementing
the plan. In 2007, the Service sent a letter to the Parks and Wildlife
Management Authority of Zimbabwe (ZPWMA) requesting additional
information. While we did receive some information at that time, we had
not received any additional updates directly from Zimbabwe since then.
Service representatives met in person with representatives from
Zimbabwe at various times in the past 6 years, but again, little new or
additional information was obtained. As stated, because African
elephants have received a significant level of attention from the CITES
Parties (member nations), including the United States, the Service had
received information on African elephants in Zimbabwe from documents
produced for CITES meetings or for other CITES-related activities.
However, this information was focused more on the ivory trade and
poaching, with less about regulatory mechanisms in place that would
allow for appropriate management (including sport hunting) of
elephants, sustainable utilization of elephants, and how elephant
management is integrated into human communities to reduce human-
elephant conflicts and support elephant populations.
On April 4, 2014, the Service sent a letter to Zimbabwe with a
number of questions regarding the status of elephants in Zimbabwe and
the hunting program. On April 17, 2014, the Director-General of ZPWMA
sent a response (herein referred to as ZPWMA response) to the Service
inquiry. Several weeks later, the Service received a number of
documents, copies of Zimbabwean laws, and other supporting
documentation that was referenced in the ZPWMA response. In addition,
on June 6, 2014, the Service received additional supporting information
from a U.S.-based conservation and hunting non-governmental
organization (NGO). The Service has also received a number of comments
from individuals and associations connected to the hunting industry in
Zimbabwe or southern Africa.
Zimbabwe's current national elephant management plan consists of
primarily two documents: The Policy and Plan for Elephant Management in
Zimbabwe (1997) and Elephant Management in Zimbabwe, third edition
(July 1996). Although the documents provide a well-developed list of
goals and objectives, there is no information in these documents on how
to achieve or fulfill these goals and objectives, nor do there appear
to be any subsequent updates of the documents or reports that provide
any indication of progress on fulfilling these management goals and
objectives. Without management plans with specific goals and actions
that are measurable and reports on the progress of meeting these goals,
the Service cannot determine if ZPWMA is implementing the well-
articulated, but general, goals and objectives that appear in Elephant
Management in Zimbabwe and The Policy and Plan for Elephant Management
in Zimbabwe. Overall, ZPWMA did not provide, and the Service otherwise
does not have, any information indicating that Zimbabwe is
implementing, on a national scale, appropriate management measures for
its elephant populations.
According to the IUCN SSC African Elephant Database report 2013
Africa, the elephant population in Zimbabwe in 2007 was 99,107, of
which 85 percent (84,416) was classified as ``definite'' and only 0.3
percent (291) was classified as ``speculative.'' While the total
population in 2012 was estimated at 100,291, only 47 percent (47,366)
was classified as ``definite'' and 45 percent (45,375) were classified
as ``speculative.'' According to this report, half of the population
estimates included in 2012 is older than 10 years, resulting in a
degradation of the quality of data. Very few new surveys have been
conducted since 2007, and of those conducted, they only covered a small
percentage of the overall population. While the Zimbabwe government
continues to state that elephant population estimates exceed 100,000
elephants, this number is clearly based on outdated information.
Without current population estimates and a better understanding of
the offtake from other sources, such as poaching, culling, and problem
animal control, it is not possible for the Service to determine if the
total offtake exceeds recommendations made in Zimbabwe's management
document, Elephant Management in Zimbabwe, that no more than 0.75
percent of all males in the population should be removed annually. With
the reliability of current population estimates, it is not possible to
evaluate if the current export quota of 500 elephants should be
adjusted. There is currently a multi-national effort, the Pan African
Elephant Aerial Survey, to conduct aerial surveys across most of the
African elephant's range in 2014, including Zimbabwe. The survey will
provide a more definitive estimate of Zimbabwe's population, along with
a more robust carcass ratio (number of carcasses observed compared to
the number of live elephants counted). In conjunction with data that
will come from efforts carried out under the CITES' project, Monitoring
the Illegal Killing of Elephants, a better understanding of the
population dynamics within Zimbabwe can be developed. However, to
provide accurate estimates, the Pan African Elephant Aerial Survey
would have to be conducted using standardized survey
[[Page 44461]]
protocols that incorporate modern technological improvements, including
the use of the latest technological advancements such as voice-data
recordings and geo-referenced digital photographs of all elephant and
carcass sightings.
The Zimbabwean Parks and Wild Life Act has established the
regulatory mechanism for the ZPWMA and its programs, and also provides
for substantial penalties for the unlawful possession of or trading in
ivory. In addition, the General Laws Amendment Act (No. 5) of 2010
provides for mandatory imprisonment of not less than 9 years for
poaching. If properly enforced, it appears these penalties would be a
sufficient deterrent for poachers. However, based on the information
the Service currently has, we do not have a good understanding of the
ZPWMA's annual operational budget, how much money is generated by
elephant hunting, or how these funds (or the lack of these funds)
impacts the ability of ZPWMA to adequately implement the Parks and Wild
Life Act or to carry out day-to-day management activities or anti-
poaching efforts. In January 1996, the Government of Zimbabwe approved
the establishment of the Parks and Wild Life Conservation Fund, a
statutory fund responsible for financing operations directly from
wildlife revenues. However, revenues generated through sport hunting
conducted on State and private lands are primarily used to finance
ZPWMA, and only limited additional funding is available from
appropriated funds from the Zimbabwe government or outside funding from
NGOs. A 2002 Panel of Experts, formed in connection with CITES, raised
concerns as to the status of ZPWMA relating to its weak financial base,
lack of management skills, inadequate and old equipment, and poor
infrastructure. No new information relevant to these concerns was
provided by ZPWMA or other sources as a result of the Service's April 4
inquiry. We have no current information as to the funding level of
ZPWMA or any indication that the financial base, management skills,
equipment, or infrastructure have improved.
According to information provided to the Service, Zimbabwe has
methodology, including participation from a number of stakeholders, for
establishing annual hunting quotas for all areas of the country. While
the methodology is based on sound wildlife management principles used
globally, the Service did not receive specific information on how these
quotas are established, whether other forms of offtake, such as
poaching and problem animal control, were taken into account, or to
what degree biological factors are taken into consideration (as opposed
to economic and societal considerations). The current quota-setting
process utilized by ZPWMA may actually be a very effective system that
takes into consideration all of these issues; however, without
documentation of the system, the Service cannot determine if sport-
hunting quotas are reasonable or beneficial to elephant populations
and, therefore, whether sport hunting is enhancing the survival of the
species.
In 1989, Zimbabwe established the Communal Areas Management
Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) to encourage reduction in
human-elephant conflicts through conservation-based community
development and to provide an economic incentive to improve community
tolerance of wildlife, including elephants. The CAMPFIRE program has
been the model for community-based conservation efforts in several
other African countries and has been identified as an innovative
program in the past. However, the CAMPFIRE program has come under
criticism relating to excessive retention of generated funds by
district councils, which resulted in diminished benefits being realized
by the communities it was designed to help. Information supplied by the
CAMPFIRE Association to the CITES Panel of Experts in 2002 indicates
that this situation may be improving. The information that was provided
to the Service does not, however, support or refute this statement.
Under a community-based conservation program, like CAMPFIRE, rural
communities should benefit from revenue generated by sport hunting.
With increased human-elephant conflicts on Communal lands, sport
hunting may be an important tool that gives these communities a stake
in sustainable management of the elephant as a natural and economic
resource and provides the enhancement that would meet the U.S. criteria
for authorizing imports of trophies. However, without current
information on how funds are utilized and the basis for hunting
offtake, the Service is unable to confirm this assumption.
It should be stated, however, that there are clearly ``bright
spots'' of elephant conservation efforts being carried out by non-
governmental entities and individuals scattered around Zimbabwe that
are providing a benefit to elephants. Individual safari outfitters and
landowners have established their own management efforts, including
anti-poaching activities, on areas under their control, either through
ownership of the land or leases. These entities have made significant
strides to ensure the long-term survival of elephants on their lands.
These efforts, however, can and have been adversely affected by
unilateral or seemingly arbitrary actions taken by the Central
government or Rural District Councils, such as past land redistribution
activities, that minimizes their conservation efforts. These ``bright
spots'' are not numerous enough, in and of themselves, to overcome the
problems currently facing Zimbabwe elephant populations or to support a
finding that sport hunting throughout Zimbabwe would enhance the
survival of the species.
Without current data on population numbers and trends, government
efforts to manage elephant populations, efforts to address human-
elephant conflicts and poaching, and the state of the hunting program
within the country, the Service is unable to make a finding that sport
hunting in Zimbabwe is enhancing the survival of the species and that
imports of trophies would meet the criteria established under the ESA
for African elephants. The July 17, 2014 enhancement finding
(subsequently revised on July 22 to correct technical errors) has been
posted at https://www.fws.gov/international/pdf/enhancement-finding-July-2014-elephant-Zimbabwe.PDF. In addition, the press release
announcing the suspension and frequently asked questions is available
on the Service's Web page (www.fws.gov/international).
This suspension does not prohibit U.S. hunters from traveling to
Zimbabwe and participating in an elephant hunt. The ESA does not
prohibit take (e.g., hunting) outside the United States; it only
prohibits import of trophies taken during such hunts without
authorization under the ESA. Therefore, it is also possible that
hunters who hunt in Zimbabwe on or after April 4, 2014, could import
their trophies at a later date if the Service can determine in the
future that such imports meet the criteria under the ESA.
Further, this decision does not affect elephants taken in Zimbabwe
prior to the Service's April 4, 2014, decision. Elephants hunted in
previous hunting seasons are also still eligible to be imported,
provided all CITES and import regulations are met.
Dated: July 24, 2014.
Brenda Tapia,
Program Analyst/Data Administrator, Branch of Permits, Division of
Management Authority.
[FR Doc. 2014-18013 Filed 7-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P