BY NOKUTHABA DLAMINI

At the heart of Bela-Bela’s Driepdrift area lies Mabula Pro Safaris — a private predator breeding facility that, to many outsiders, represents one of the most controversial aspects of South Africa’s wildlife industry. But for the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (ZimParks) delegation, which recently toured the facility together with myself as a journalist from Zimbabwe, the visit provided an unusual opportunity: to see the behind-the-scenes reality of a commercial hunting lion breeding operation, far from the images often circulated in global media.

Led by Stephen Palos, Vice-Chair of the Sustainable Use Coalition Southern Africa (SUCo-SA) and CEO of the Confederation of Hunters Associations of South Africa (CHASA), the tour included a close look at lions bred under the South African Predator Association (SAPA) standards.

Inside the sanctuary, the group viewed 52 lions — including 12 adult males and 11 cubs — living in structured social groups within medium-sized enclosures. The animals walked freely, with access to shade, water, and open space.

An earlier visit to a predator sanctuary was, as pointed out by Palos, a stark contrast. Those were used to people whereas these would eat you in a heartbeat.

“These are breeding animals specifically, not pets,” he emphasized. “This is a breeding unit with the express purpose of producing lions for hunting. What you’re seeing here is very different from the popular ‘puppy farm’ narrative.”

Debunking the ‘puppy farm’ image

For years, global campaigns have depicted South African lion breeding as cruel and exploitative — with constant forced pregnancies, cubs immediately snatched from mothers, and animals confined in cramped cages. Palos argued that the facility before the delegation told a different story.

“Each enclosure functions as a pride,” he explained. “A male, a few females, different ages of cubs — just like in the wild, but within an enclosure. Look at the cleanliness, the condition of the animals, their behaviours. These animals are at ease.”

He stressed that cubs were not routinely separated from their mothers for tourism activities, and that animals destined for hunting were relocated to separate facilities to be raised with minimal human imprinting.

A fractured industry

Despite the orderliness observed at Mabula Pro, Palos admitted that the predator breeding industry suffers from fragmentation. Although SAPA prescribes standards for its members, adherence is voluntary.

“There are around 340 facilities in the country, but only about 43 are members of the association,” he said. “We cannot speak about those who choose to operate outside of these standards. That’s where the problems arise.”

What can African countries learn from each other?

After the tour, l asked what lessons Southern Africa can share across borders, including Zimbabwe.

Palos responded with a regional, long-term view.

“Every African country has something to teach and something to learn,” he said. “Wildlife is a renewable natural resource — but only if it’s managed properly.”

He contrasted South Africa’s fenced wildlife model with Zimbabwe’s largely open systems.

“South Africa relies heavily on fencing — from Kruger National Park to private ranches. But in Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Namibia, and elsewhere, you have vast open landscapes. Both systems work in their own contexts.”

Palos warned against “fortress conservation”, where communities are excluded from wildlife spaces — a model he says has failed people and wildlife alike.

Toward shared learning and mentorship

One of the strongest points he emphasized was the need for honest exchange between countries.

“It’s wonderful for us to learn from your challenges and successes,” he told the delegation. “But it’s even more important for us to show what works here, openly, and address our own challenges.”

He suggested that exchanges like this should evolve into:

Economic lessons from a controversial industry

Palos acknowledged that South Africa has become a global leader in game farming and wildlife production systems — but insisted this does not invalidate the strengths of other countries’ models.

“There is economic success here,” he said. “But it’s not the only way. Zimbabwe already has strong systems. A blend of your models and ours could be even better.”

For the Zimbabwean delegation, the visit provided an opportunity to observe a facility that challenges both critics and defenders of the captive breeding industry. Whether South Africa continues down this path or phases it out — as many activists demand — facilities like Mabulapro Safaris remain central to the debate.

The tour served as a reminder that wildlife management in Africa is varied, complex, and always evolving — shaped by history, ecology, economics, and human needs.

BY NOKUTHABA DLAMINI 

The Sustainable Use Coalition Southern Africa (SUCo-SA) has issued two strongly worded statements criticising decisions made at the CITES CoP20 conference in Uzbekistan, accusing Parties of undermining conservation success in southern Africa and ignoring evidence from range states.

In the first statement, SUCo-SA Vice Chair and the Confederation of Hunters Association of South Africa CEO Stephen Palos condemned the vote rejecting a proposal to remove the abundant southern giraffe from Appendix II. The proposal received 49 votes in favour, 48 against and 38 abstentions — including the 27-member EU bloc — falling short of the two-thirds majority required.

Palos called the outcome “yet another travesty of justice at the CITES CoP,” arguing that the decision reflects “a world dominated by an emotion before science philosophy in conservation.”

He singled out opposition from several African countries, saying:

“The most vocal objections made came from African countries with shocking records in conservation… where poaching, conflict, poverty, and desperation have decimated their wildlife, and now sell their souls to global anti-use/animal-rightist NGOs.”

Palos said the Chair “overlooked Eswatini and allowed none of the observer organisations an opportunity to speak,” forcing South Africa to call for a vote despite having “superbly presented” the proposal.

According to SUCo-SA, evidence showed that southern giraffe populations in Angola, Botswana, Eswatini, Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe are “overwhelmingly increasing, with only one population reported as stable, and not a single population showing decline.”

The statement said this success is the result of “decades of effective national legislation, management frameworks, investment by private and community custodians, and sustainable-use incentives.”

But SUCo-SA argues that countries with no giraffe populations or poor conservation performance are influencing decisions that harm nations managing wildlife successfully.

“Once again, CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) has managed to punish success and reward failure in conservation. And real people in southern Africa pay the price in hunger and deprivation.”

SUCo-SA: CITES Parties “killing with kindness” on rhino horn and ivory

In a second statement titled “CITES Parties Killing with Kindness at CoP20 – Rhino Horn & Ivory,” the SUCo-SA Executive criticised what it described as a predictable pattern where CITES Parties praise southern African conservation results while refusing to support related proposals.

The coalition said:

“They start by congratulating southern African range states for their ‘outstanding successes’… And then, without pause, they immediately announce that they will not support the proposal.”

The statement argued that many countries rejecting downlisting proposals come from regions where rhino or elephant populations have “collapsed or are entirely absent,” and that 47 years of trade bans and demand-reduction campaigns have failed.

“If 47 years of demand-reduction campaigns and trade bans have not saved rhino or elephants, at what point do we acknowledge that this approach is not working?” the coalition asked.

The statement questioned the positions of the EU, UK and USA, asking why they continue to “punish African conservation successes while rewarding failures” and why they “elevate the views of non-range states and discount the data, management systems, and lived realities of the countries that actually protect these species on the ground.”

According to SUCo-SA, southern African countries deserve practical support, not diplomatic praise that leads to policy obstruction.

“In the most diplomatic but patronising manner, southern African countries are told, in effect, to ‘go to hell, but enjoy the trip.’ This is what we mean when we say they are killing with kindness.”

The coalition said African states are “not asking for applause; they are asking for recognition of proven results” and the policy space to continue what works.

The statement concludes with a challenge to the global convention:

“CITES must decide whether it wants to remain a forum guided by evidence and sovereignty, or one led by political theatre and external pressure. The future of rhino and elephant conservation depends on that choice.”

BY NOKUTHABA DLAMINI 

As the world prepares for the 20th Conference of the Parties (CoP20) to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), Zimbabwe has outlined a bold and comprehensive policy agenda that shifts global discussions beyond ivory and toward broader issues of sustainable use, human rights, and community empowerment.

In an exclusive interview with VicFallsLive, Dr. Agrippa Sora, board chairman of the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (ZimParks), said the country’s proposals are anchored on a simple but transformative message: wildlife conservation must deliver real benefits to the people living with wildlife.

Key proposals Zimbabwe taking to CITES CoP20

1. Commercial trade in elephant leather products

Zimbabwe is pushing for approval to engage in regulated commercial trade in elephant leather products. Authorities argue that this form of value addition can bring economic gains to local communities, promote sustainable use, and reduce reliance on donor funding.

2. A formal voice for communities within CITES

Zimbabwe is advocating for the establishment of an Advisory Body or Community Forum within CITES, ensuring that the voices of rural people—who coexist with wildlife—formally shape decisions on international trade, conservation restrictions, and benefit-sharing.

This push echoes one of the founding principles of CITES, which acknowledges that “peoples and States are and should be the best protectors of their own wild fauna and flora.”

3. Recognition of human rights within conservation governance

Zimbabwe’s delegation wants CoP20 to acknowledge the human rights dimensions of conservation—particularly:

• The right to safety for communities facing human–wildlife conflict
• The right to food security
• The right to benefit from natural resources within their landscapes

For Zimbabwe, these rights are inseparable from wildlife management.

Moving beyond ivory: A broader view of sustainable use

Dr. Sora emphasized that Zimbabwe does not want the CoP20 debate to be reduced to ivory.

Zimbabwe argues that without these broader interventions, the conservation model remains unbalanced—protecting wildlife while leaving the people who live among it trapped in poverty

Youth at the centre of the conservation agenda

One of the strongest themes in Zimbabwe’s CoP20 position is youth empowerment, an area Dr. Sora said is now central to national conservation policy.

“Zimbabwe is supporting the Youth Ethnic Conservation Agenda, and we want to continue empowering young people,” Dr. Sora said.

“These are young people who travel long distances between villages and shopping centres, often unaware of wildlife incidents happening around them.”

He revealed that Zimbabwe has approved the establishment of a national chapter of the CITES Rural Youth Network, a platform designed to give young rural citizens a voice in global conservation decision-making.

Dr. Sora said young people—often traveling long distances between villages and service centres—are the first responders to wildlife encounters, yet are rarely included in policy processes.

“Their inclusion is critical for awareness, safety, and community resilience,” he said.

A rights-based approach linked to national priorities

Dr. Sora linked Zimbabwe’s CITES proposals to the country’s National Development Strategy (NDS2), which prioritises poverty eradication.

“We want to ensure that communities living within wildlife landscapes receive meaningful support and benefits from the natural resources around them,” he said.

This includes promoting value addition—for example, crafting products from elephant leather—and enabling community enterprises tied to legal wildlife products.

“We are promoting opportunities for value addition so that communities can benefit economically from the wildlife with which they coexist.”

He added that the board is committed to transitioning youth from vulnerability to empowerment, ensuring access to education, business opportunities, and long-term livelihoods.

Unlocking finance through sustainable use

Zimbabwe also plans to push for financial mechanisms—particularly the sustainable use of existing wildlife stockpiles—to support community development.

“Our aim is to secure mechanisms that allow us to reinvest in these communities, strengthening their resilience and ensuring they thrive alongside wildlife.”

Zimbabwe argues that restrictive global trade rules deprive communities of funding that could improve safety, reduce human–wildlife conflict, and support conservation programs.

Zimbabwe’s position rooted in CITES founding principles

Zimbabwe’s proposals, Dr. Sora said, are consistent with the spirit of CITES itself.

The convention’s preamble affirms:

Wild fauna and flora are an irreplaceable part of the earth’s natural systems… Peoples and States are and should be the best protectors of their own wild fauna and flora… International cooperation is essential to prevent over-exploitation…

Zimbabwe believes that empowering communities, recognizing human rights, and enabling sustainable use are simply modern applications of these foundational principles.