• Version
• Download 22
• File Size 513.43 KB
• File Count 1
• Create Date February 13, 2025
• Last Updated March 19, 2025

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY HANSARD 13 FEBRUARY 2025 VOL 51 No. 24

PARLIAMENT OF ZIMBABWE

Thursday, 13^th February, 2025

The National Assembly met at a Quarter-past Two o’clock p.m.

PRAYERS

(THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER in the Chair)

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

HON. TOGAREPI:  Madam Speaker, I move that Orders of the Day, Numbers 1 to 4 be stood over until Order of the Day, Number 5 on today’s Order Paper has been disposed of.

HON. NYANDORO:  I second Madam Speaker.

Motion put and agreed to.

HON. CHIGUMBU:  On a point of order Madam Speaker.  We had requested to make some points of national interest.  I do not know if you managed to get our request.

THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER:  I am sorry.  I will give you the chance on Tuesday next week because we have already moved on.

MOTION

REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER DEVELOPMENT ON THE STATE OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN ZIMBABWE

Fifth Order read:  Adjourned debate on motion on the Report of the Portfolio Committee on Energy and Power Development on the state of electricity supply in Zimbabwe.

Question again proposed.

HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  Thank you Madam Speaker.  The issue of electricity has become a thorn in the flesh in terms of industrial development enabling.  We hope that this issue is addressed as a matter of urgency to ensure that the electricity situation is restored to normalcy.

Let me highlight about three very important points that have not been raised by other Hon. Members.  Firstly, Madam Speaker, the Government of Zimbabwe has authorised independent power producers to assist bridging the gap in terms of the electricity deficit that we are facing in this country.  Those independent power producers are investors to Zimbabwe.  They have got limitations or challenges which they are facing, which must be addressed as a matter of urgency to ensure that the electricity situation is addressed.

Let me highlight a few issues, Madam Speaker. Number one -  on the importation of energy generation equipment such as transformers and solar systems, the recent Finance Bill has allowed Value Added Tax (VAT) to be deferred to 180 days. What it means is that you are allowed to apply through the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority, to pay VAT after 180 days or six months. My point is that since we are in vital need of this resource, can we completely exempt the payment of VAT by those independent power producers whenever they import equipment from other countries for the purpose of the generation of electricity?  So, my recommendation Madam Speaker, is that let us deal with this issue of VAT payment.  Let us exempt it for good so that anyone who wants to import electricity equipment must do so VAT free.

Secondly Madam Speaker, look at what is happening here. There is this issue of currency convertibility. You realise that most independent power producers are investors who borrow capital from other capital markets in other countries.  So, what then happens is, when they borrow, they borrow in United States dollars or some form of foreign currency but when they establish their IPP companies in Zimbabwe, the billing will be done in ZiG.  So, these are companies Madam Speaker, which actually enter into business for the purpose of making profit and for that matter, they do what we call investment appraisals.  They do some form of investment appraisal to see if this investment is worth taking or not.  One such investment method is the issue of the net present value.  They check if the present value of the expected future cash flows arising out of their investment.  So, whenever the billing is done in ZiG, this may to some extent discourage investment in such a vital industry.

I am sure Madam Speaker, that the Government has actually agreed to ring-fence the issue of fuel to be sold solely in USD. Can we do the same also on IPPs? When they establish the solar panel plant, we must allow them to bill in USD Madam Speaker. When are we going to get the USD?

         I want to make a recommendation. Madam Speaker, you will find that the majority of our people who are seriously affected by the cost of electricity are domestic users as well as other vital companies  or institutions like hospitals and schools. So, we may allow those schools and hospitals to still bill in ZiG but those big manufacturing companies to charge in USD so that we safeguard the USD component. This will enable the investors to recoup their original investment and also make a profit.

         The challenge that we have is that this is a huge investment. A solar plant, for example, is a huge investment and you can always get a break-even point after maybe eight years or more. When that happens Madam Speaker, you need certainty in terms of the billing system. You also need a currency that is not volatile and does not change value over time. Let me move on to another issue in terms of the issue of electricity.

         We have got ZESA as a main player in the electricity provision. ZESA has its infrastructure, distribution lines, transformers and so forth. We have got this independent power producer who introduces a factory but then they will be using ZESA’s transmission equipment for electricity, and you know how much ZESA charges them? As we sit right now Madam Speaker, ZESA is charging them four cents per kilowatt hour. What it means is that if you look at the normal price of electricity in Zimbabwe, it is sixteen cents per kilowatt hour.

So, of the sixteen cents per kilowatt, ZESA needs four cents from the IPP operator. What it therefore means Madam Speaker, is that if you say four cents out of sixteen cents, you will realise that 25% is taken by ZESA itself for the use of its distribution equipment. I think that it is too much Madam Speaker. Why do I say so Madam Chair? You will realise that in other countries like China where those companies use coal to generate energy, they charge three to four cents per kilowatt hour to their consumers using coal.

If ZESA is the main player and is directly under the control of the ministry which is a regulator, if they charge four cents only for the use of its distribution equipment, I think they will be doing an injustice to the community of Zimbabwe. I encourage the Ministry of Energy to try to intervene in this very important situation so that we can regulate the operations of ZESA in this regard.

         Madam Speaker, we have got many people who want to invest in Zimbabwe, particularly in the energy sector. There is this thing that always rings in my mind. What is it Madam Speaker? There is this institution called the Zimbabwe Investment Development Agency (ZIDA). ZIDA charges USD 5000 for an investor to get a licence but let us compare it to our counterparts in SADC. Botswana charges P750, South Africa R1000, to give just a few examples.

On average in the region, our investment charges for general licences are too exorbitant. Why do we need USD5000 Madam Speaker? What kind of structural issues are required to charge USD 5000? I think we need to work on that as a country to ensure that we attract investment. Investment is like water and follows the gradient.

 So, whenever we put a regulatory framework that is a bit difficult or that may chase away our investors, I do not think it will support ourselves in terms of the industry sector. Lastly, I wish to highlight a point that as Zimbabwe, let us utilise our coal resources which we are well endowed with. I have just given an example of China. In China, they are using their coal and they are charging three to four cents per kilowatt hour in terms of electricity to its consumers.

Why can we not embrace coal as Zimbabwe? Even under our current circumstances, the bulk of our electricity is coming from coal. Why can we not expand the operations in terms of coal? What is the problem? We are heavily endowed with that resource and we also invest in trying by all means to limit or to control the issue of pollution to society. With this Madam Speaker, I wish to submit. Thank you very much.

         +HON. B. NDLOVU: Thank you Madam Speaker for allowing me to give my views on the motion which was tabled by Hon. Sihlabo and supported by Hon. F. Moyo.  Electricity is indeed life.  It is what is holding the Government in place.  All our lives, children either in kindergarten or beyond are looked after by mothers using electricity.  In schools, they are using electricity and for our economy to progress, there should be enough electricity. 

         In agriculture or mining, we also need electricity.  Looking at this energy of electricity, how do we get it?  In Zimbabwe, we have enough coal.  Right now, people are saying electricity that we get from coal is not clean.  Back then, developed countries used electricity from coal.  Therefore, in Zimbabwe, if we were to work together, we would realise that we could get enough electricity from coal.  This is because most of us have started querying the issue of electricity from coal.

  We tend to say electricity from hydropower is clean but if it is possible, we work together as the august House and look into the issue that can help us as a country to get enough electricity. Instead, we are spending more time arguing.  We must work together as a country and as people to agree on what to do for us to progress. I can continue to say much about what has been contributed by my fellow Hon. Members previously.   

The issue is, we all work together with the Vision 2030 of our President, that getting to 2030, we need to be a sustainable country with a middle-class economy having developed mining, education and all the departments in our country for them to work well.  Allow me to say all of us in here represent people in different homes who are looking towards progress. Despite our differences, we need to work in unison and see to it that we do everything possible for our country to get enough energy. We have engineers in our country who were taught by our Government where Government did this with special focus in developing our country. Although we have some of them out of this country, we need to look into issues of bringing them back so that they can assist us in getting enough electricity in our country. With these few words, I thank you.

         *HON. MAKUMIRE: Thank you Madam Speaker Ma’am for according me this opportunity. The challenge of electricity has put a hold on development in our country. Businesses are closing down and hospitals are not functioning well. On the issue of electricity, if we try and trace the source where these challenges are coming from, you find that the infrastructure where power is generated is now obsolete. Some of the infrastructure was built during the colonial days and we could not improve on the infrastructure that was there.

There were other plans in place to generate electricity in the country but it did not go well. If you look at what is in place, you find that electricity goes at 4.00 a.m. and then comes back midnight. During the day there will be no electricity. This means we are lagging behind. At the health sector, you find that there are machines like ventilators which use electricity. It means that in the district hospitals where there are no dedicated lines, there will be no electricity.

So, major surgical operations cannot go ahead in this state. It means that people die because of lack of electricity and people who will be forced to walk for long distances are brought here in Harare. This then increases the number of people being assisted. If you look at the mortuaries where these bodies are placed, you find that it is not accessible because the bodies will be in a decomposing state. This matter should be looked at with urgency so that we do not continue with this predicament.

I want to look at agriculture and where we come from, we farm sugarcane. Most of the crop was affected by drought because a lot of farmers use pivot irrigation and it requires energy. So, if there is no electricity, it means that the harvest of sugarcane in Chiredzi will be low. It leads to low sugar in the market. If you look at it closely, you will find that when it comes to SME, people who are formally employed are very few. Most of them are in the informal sector. You find that the youth who are engaging in welding now, cannot work because of electricity challenges.

 These youth end up indulging in drugs. So, the challenge is breeding other challenges as well. You find that there are women who are in selling ice-cream and all the perishables. If they do not have electricity, they will run out of business. The country must know its needs because if you look at local authorities, you find that most water treatment plants are not on dedicated power lines. If there is no electricity, there is no pumping of water. So, you find that we have challenges in accessing potable water and people are being mugged because it will be dark.

         Let us look at long-term and short-term solutions. Firstly, we should look at our mini-hydro power stations, they need to be revamped. If you look at Nyanga District, there were plants, for example Gairezi Hydropower Station. People were expecting about 30 megawatts. The tender was awarded to someone in 2015 but up to now, we do not see any progress. That should be speeded up so that we have electricity.

         The other issue Madam Speaker is, you find that in the 10 provinces, each and every province has its own things which can help us in generating more energy. For example, in Hwange there is coal, Dande there is coal and Chiredzi there is coal. If you go to Manicaland, they have a lot of water and in Masvingo, they also have dams. All those dams should have mini-hydro power stations so that we generate electricity in all provinces. Hwange will top up on what the provinces are generating.

         We have climatic change and we are now receiving few rains. At times we get more or less. I think we should look at places where our rivers are directing to, so that we construct dams and not just waste water going to the sea. If we look at the Zambezi, there are a lot of places where there are a lot of places where there is potential to construct dams and generate power. We lose a lot of electricity in transmission because of the obsolete infrastructure. All this should be revamped so that we do not lose a lot of electricity in-between.

         I want to look at the leadership of those in charge of electricity generation. On the issue of electricity, we need professionals who should zero-in on the generation of electricity.  It needs technocrats, not a person who was a headmaster.  We need engineers so that everything goes smoothly.

         In conclusion, we are generating insufficient electricity.  I know it is expensive but it is better to have expensive electricity than not to have it at all. We should increase our imports of electricity.  The other places which should not go without electricity are hospitals, water reticulation places and farming areas where we have irrigation.  I thank you.

         *HON.  MUNEMO: Thank you Madam Speaker and good afternoon. I also want to add my voice to the report concerning the issue of electricity.  A lot of things are being disturbed in the country because of the lack of electricity.  We are failing to communicate with those abroad because of lack of electricity and it is also affecting businesses.  Lack of electricity is affecting even the phones, landlines and gadgets in homes.

Hon. Makumire also spoke about the issue of hospitals that most of the patients who are on life support system end up losing their lives or are disturbed because of lack of electricity. For the security and protection of the country, there is a need for electricity to make sure that all the machines are up and running properly without any black-outs, even from our households.  Some people wish to stay in their homes using their different gadgets to make them comfortable, be it air conditioning or heaters.

         Hence, I see that the issue of electricity in the country is very pertinent and it is also important as a country to put our hands together to alleviate this problem.  In the rural areas, the biggest problem is that when the wooden poles fall down, the ZESA personnel come and replace them with wooden poles.  I recommend that as a country, we must also begin to put concrete poles because they are durable. Many people are working tirelessly to make sure that there is electricity. The electricity company should come to the rural areas and work together with the locals so that they can get enough help to replace the wooden poles with concrete poles. In Mt. Darwin, these wooden poles are being affected by termites. All the wooden poles in my area have fallen down and most people are now stealing these lines and melting them in order to produce pots.

         The Government is losing a lot of money because electric lines are being stolen. Once the Government starts to work towards making sure that rural areas have been electrified, we must come up with a law that protects the infrastructure of the Government and also come up with some money to replace all the wooden poles with concrete poles. Speaking right now, we should not have a problem of infrastructure development and protection. The issue of signal and network coverage should reach all the areas. Even in our education sector, there is a need to make sure that the network and radiant television signals reach all the areas but for all these things to be successful, there is need for electricity. There is a very big deficit of electricity and some students end up writing their exams without being able to research properly because of lack of electricity.

 As a country or as parents, we will be expecting those students to perform very well in their exams whilst they do not have adequate resources. I also implore the Ministry responsible for energy to come up with projects such as solar systems, which will enable all areas to have enough electricity throughout the country.

As a country, we are mining lithium and that same mineral is used for the production of solar batteries. If we use those lithium batteries, they have a life span of at least five years. If we are going to use lithium to produce solar batteries, it will help a lot to alleviate the shortage of electricity in the country because these batteries can store electricity.

We must also use our water bodies in the country such as Kariba Hydropower Station to generate power.  We must utilise all the water bodies throughout the country to produce electricity from water. We also have places like thermal power stations and other areas in which the Government must put money for some research to make sure that we can open more thermal stations throughout the country. Madam Speaker, the challenge is that with the small amount of electricity we have in the country, we are not able to protect the electricity properly. We must have proper grids and also come up with an infrastructure that prevents thieves from stealing the electricity, especially those who are using electricity without paying for it. We must invest in smart machines as a country which use less electricity. The country must also invest in making sure that there are a lot of ways to come up with electricity, especially harvesting electricity.  This will help us alleviate deaths caused by lack of electricity and reduce students’ failure rates from lack of electricity or accidents caused by lack of electricity.  In towns, most of the time when the robots are down, there is an increase in accidents.  Drivers become confused and some of them exchange words at traffic lights trying to go first, hence I am imploring the Ministry to work together with Government and all other partners to ensure adequate electricity in the country.  I thank you.

         HON. MAPOSA:  Good afternoon Madam Speaker. I want to add a few words on this motion.  In this country, we cannot say we cannot get electricity because we have a lot of coal reserves in Hwange and Binga.  Some are saying we should import electricity from South Africa but I am saying no, we should use what we have.  I have seen trucks coming from South Africa to collect coal here in Zimbabwe.  We should make enough electricity in Zimbabwe because we have adequate coal.  If we generate electricity from Hwange and Kariba, during distribution, our engineers should follow up on the distribution flow.  If a pole falls down, no-one bothers to report and as Members of Parliament we just pass through despite seeing a fallen pole.  In Hwange, they generate electricity but people are not reporting fallen poles, which disrupts the smooth flow of electricity.  The poles I am referring to have a life-span of 15 to 30 years if well treated.  We should be the watchmen of what is happening in our country.

         We have lots of water in Kariba and we should generate a lot of electricity.  We should also have solar power and more PPPs so that we have solar fields because we have a lot of sunshine for 365 days.  So we can generate our energy from solar.  We desperately need electricity because we have a winter wheat crop that needs electricity for irrigation.  We should also generate electricity from wind.  ZESA should embark on that project so that we do not have electricity shortages.  Electricity helps everyone.  If electricity goes in here, all the Members of Parliament will be worried.

         I want to thank our present Government for building Units 7 and 8 in Hwange and they are generating adequate electricity for distribution, between 600MW and 700MW but we are also losing a lot along the way because of overgrown trees that disturb the electricity lines.  Some people just talk because they have not seen the 7 and 8 units.  We want to add generators so that we increase power generation.

         I want to thank our Government for building Units 7 and 8.  I also think that our electricity price should make us continue to get electricity.  We should not have shortage of electricity.  South Africa is taking our coal.  We have enough coal reserves to take us the next 200 years.  So, we should have more production and our engineers should know what they are doing.  We cannot have shortage of electricity with all the resources in this country.  We were blessed because we have all the resources such as coal, water, wind and sun.  There are other countries which do not have the sun while others just see it for a few months but we have the sun from January to December and I think we should not have shortage of electricity.  I thank you.

         HON. KANGAUSARU:  Thank you Madam Speaker Ma’am.  Greetings from Hurungwe.  Today I rise to give my own views on the issue of electricity and energy in Zimbabwe.  The current energy crisis has a debilitating impact on our economy, industry and the lives of our citizens.    To give a background Madam Speaker Ma’am, Zimbabwe has been facing a severe power shortage since 2019, resulting in the wide spread load-shedding.  The country’s power generation capacity is approximately 1.3 MW but the demand stands at 1.8 MW.  The shortage has also resulted in the combination of many factors including ageing infrastructure.  Our power plants and transmission infrastructure are in dire need of upgrading and maintenance.  Water shortage is another factor.  The Kariba Dam which supplies nearly 60% of our hydro-electricity power has been affected by drought, thereby reducing its enacting capacity.  Coal shortage is another factor.  Our country is failing to secure adequate coal supplies, further reducing their generating capacity.

         Madam Speaker Ma'am, the crisis is a far-reaching consequence for our economy and citizens.  I will touch on a number of them, at least maybe four of them.

1. Economic stagnation. Load shedding has resulted in

significant losses for businesses, particularly in the manufacturing and  mining sectors.

2. The closure of businesses and industries due

to power shortages has led to widespread job losses.  

3. Farmers have reduced their irrigation to irrigate their

crops, leading to reduced agriculture output and prices have gone up.

4. Health risks, Madam Speaker. The lack of electricity has

resulted in increased reliance on alternative energy sources such as charcoal and firewood, which pose some serious health risks.

I therefore, Madam Speaker, make some recommendations and maybe solutions to the predicament that we are facing to mitigate the energy crisis. I propose the following, not the least recommendations:

Firstly, to invest in renewable energy, Zimbabwe should prioritise the development of renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, hydroelectric power and also to upgrade and maintain existing infrastructures. We must invest in upgrading and maintaining our aging power plants and transmission infrastructures.

Thirdly is diversify energy sources. We should explore alternative energy sources such as coal bed methane and biofuels and promote energy efficiency. We must encourage businesses and households to adopt energy-efficient practice and technologies.

The fifth is regional co-operation. We should strengthen our regional co-operation with the neighbouring countries to share knowledge, expertise and resources in addressing the energy crisis in SADC.

The sixth point is to involve the private sector investment.

We should also incentivise private sector's investment in the energy sector to increase generating capacity and improve efficiency.

The seventh point, if I may say, is energy storage solutions. We should explore energy storage solutions such as batteries, to stabilise the grid and reduce the impact of load shedding.

Madam Speaker Ma’am, on the implementation plan, we need to implement these resolutions that I have suggested. I propose that the following plan be established: -

1. Establish an energy task force. A task force which should be

established to oversee the implementation of the proposed solutions.

2. Develop a comprehensive energy policy. A comprehensive

energy policy should be developed to guide the development of the energy sector.

3. Secure funding. Funding should be secured from private

investors, international organisations excluding Trump and Government sources to support the implementation of proposed solutions.

4. Build partnerships. Partnerships should be built with regional

and international organisations to share knowledge and expertise and resources.

In conclusion Madam Speaker, the energy crisis in Zimbabwe is a pressing issue that requires our urgent attention. I urge this House to support the proposed solutions and recommendations to mitigate the crisis.  We must work together to ensure that our nation has access to reliable, efficient and sustainable energy.

Furthermore, to conduct a comprehensive energy audit, conduct a comprehensive audit to identify areas of inefficiency and opportunities for improvement.

  Assess the feasibility of renewable energy source such as solar, like I mentioned wind, hydroelectric power in Zimbabwe. Develop a national energy storage strategy in order to stabilise the grid and to reduce the impact of load shedding.

Investigate the potential of energy efficiency technology such as the lead, lightning and energy efficiency appliances in Zimbabwe. I thank you Madam Speaker.

HON. TOGAREPI:  I move that the debate do now adjourn.

HON. J. TSHUMA: I want to debate, yes. – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] -

THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER:  You will have your chance next week Honourable.

HON. C. MOYO:  I second Madam Speaker Ma’am.

Motion put and agreed to.

Debate to resume:  Tuesday, 18^th February, 2025.

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

HON. TOGAREPI:  Thank you Madam Speaker. I move that we revert to Order of the Day, Number Three.

HON. C. MOYO:  I second Madam Speaker.

Motion put and agreed to.

SECOND READING

PARKS AND WILDLIFE AMENDMENT BILL [H.B.1, 2024]

HON. MATEMA:  Thank you Madam Speaker Ma’am.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Joint Portfolio and Thematic Committees on Environment, Climate and Tourism, and Peace and Security conducted public hearings to gather public input on the Parks and Wildlife Amendment Bill, [H.B.1, 2024]. The public consultation process involved engaging a diverse spectrum of stakeholders, including Government officials, industry representatives, conservationists, community leaders and other interested parties through physical hearings and written submissions. This report amalgamates the key findings and proffers specific recommendations to enhance the proposed legislation based on the submissions received.

2.0 OBJECTIVES OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS

The broad objective of the public hearings was to scrutinise the potential environmental, social and economic implications of the proposed amendments, identify areas for improvement and recommend necessary adjustments. The specific objectives of the public hearings were to:

1. Gather diverse perspectives on the proposed amendments to the Parks and Wildlife Amendment Bill.
2. Assess the potential impact of the proposed legislation on the environment, tourism industry and economic development.
3. Identify areas where the proposed legislation can be improved to better achieve its objectives.
4. Recommend necessary amendments to the legislation to address the identified concerns.

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 The Portfolio Committee on Environment, Climate and Tourism sought clarification on the Bill's provisions through oral evidence from the Ministry of Environment, Climate and Wildlife. Subsequently, the Committee on Environment and the Thematic Committee on Peace and Security jointly decided to conduct the public hearings.

3.2 To streamline the process, the joint Committees divided into two teams. Team A covered Sebakwe, Gokwe, Matopos, Tsholotsho, Cross Mabale, Binga, Victoria Falls and Harare, while Team B focused on Chikombedzi, Save Valley Conservancy, Chipinge, Nyanga, Shamva, Mushumbi Pools, Hurungwe and Kariba.

3.3 To ensure broad public participation, team chairpersons utilised local community radio stations to invite stakeholders and provide information about the Bill and the public hearing process. Additionally, written submissions were accepted via email and collected during hearings. A comprehensive analysis of all feedback was conducted to identify key themes and concerns regarding the Bill.

4.0 COMMITTEES FINDINGS

The following were the general overview of the key points raised in the public hearings;

4.1 Human-Wildlife Conflict

4.1.1 A central issue emerging from the public submissions is the escalating tension between humans and wildlife. Communities living in proximity to wildlife habitats were experiencing significant challenges due to increased human-wildlife encounters. These interactions often resulted in loss of life, property damage and disruption to livelihoods. A critical sub-theme within this issue is the perceived inadequacy of compensation for those affected by wildlife. Many submissions highlighted a lack of timely and sufficient support from government agencies to address the losses incurred. Furthermore, the absence of effective preventative measures such as fencing or early warning systems has exacerbated the problem.

4.2 Community Involvement and Benefit Sharing

4.2.1 A central theme emerging from the public submissions is the desire for increased community participation in wildlife management and decision-making processes. Stakeholders expressed a strong belief that local communities should have a greater stake in the management of wildlife resources. This includes demands for devolution of power to local levels, allowing for more direct influence over decisions impacting their livelihoods. Furthermore, there is a clear expectation that communities should benefit directly from wildlife-related activities such as employment opportunities, revenue sharing and infrastructure development. Transparency and accountability in the management of wildlife resources were also emphasised as crucial elements for fostering trust and co-operation between communities and government agencies.

4.3 Law Enforcement and Anti-Poaching

4. 3.1 A significant concern expressed in the submissions is the prevalence of poaching and the illegal wildlife trade. Stakeholders called for a robust and effective law enforcement response to address this issue. There was a strong emphasis on the need for increased penalties for those involved in poaching activities. Additionally, there were calls for greater community involvement in anti-poaching efforts, recognising the potential for local knowledge and support to enhance law enforcement effectiveness. To further reduce the incentives for poaching, many submissions highlighted the importance of providing alternative livelihood opportunities for communities residing in wildlife-rich areas.

4.4 Wildlife Management and Conservation

4.4.1 A critical aspect of the submissions revolved around concerns about wildlife management practices. Stakeholders expressed a need for effective population control measures, including culling where necessary, to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts and protect biodiversity. The importance of habitat conservation and restoration was also emphasised to ensure the long-term sustainability of wildlife populations. There were also concerns about the potential negative impacts of human activities such as mining, on wildlife and their habitats.

4. 5 Governance and Institutional Framework

4.5.1 A significant portion of the submissions focused on the broader governance and institutional aspects of wildlife management. Participants expressed concerns about the existing legal and policy framework calling for clarity and consistency in regulations. There was also a demand for improved coordination and collaboration among government agencies involved in wildlife management. The role of traditional leaders in decision-making processes was highlighted with many advocating for their inclusion in governance structures. Additionally, the impact of international treaties and conventions on domestic wildlife management practices was a subject of discussion with some stakeholders expressing concerns about their potential negative effects.

CLAUSE 1 Short Title.

There was no objection raised on the short title of the Bill and it was adopted as it was in all public hearings.

 

CLAUSE 2 Amendment of Section 2 of Chapter. 20:14

The submission form public hearings raised concerns about the clarity and accuracy of definitions used in the proposed legislation. The public argued that the proposed definition of "exotic wild animal" as an animal not endemic to Zimbabwe is too broad and would incorrectly classify elephants as exotic. The public recommended that the definition should be changed to "an animal not native to Zimbabwe" or "an animal not indigenous to Zimbabwe" to accurately reflect the intended meaning.

The definition of "animal" in Clause 2 (b) of the Bill does not define "wild animal" or "domesticated wild animal". This creates ambiguity about the classification of certain animals. The industry recommends that the terms "wild animal" and "domesticated wild animal" need to be clearly defined.

The submission raises concerns about the definition of "wildlife" in Clause 2 (g) of the Bill. The definition is considered too broad and includes livestock and domesticated animals. This brings all animals under the control of the Parks and Wildlife Authority, which is undesirable. The industry recommends that livestock and domesticated animals should be excluded from the definition of "wildlife". The definition should focus on indigenous wild animals.

The new section 2B (2) (c) states that there is no dominion over wild animals except for those purchased and kept in captivity. This is problematic to the wildlife industry which have fenced-in animals and has been managing them ever since. The industry argues that they should have dominion over these animals even though they were not purchased. They have invested significantly in the animals' well-being and proliferation. The Bill would require wildlife industries to prove that they purchased the animals, which they cannot due to lost records and would jeopardise their ownership and investment.

The industry recommends that the Bill should be amended to recognise ownership and dominion over animals in pre-existing game-fenced areas. This protects existing investments and encourages further investment in the industry. It avoids the need for entities to prove purchase history and safeguards the monetary value of investments.

 

The submissions recommended the importance of precise and accurate definitions in legislation to avoid ambiguity and potential legal issues. The drafters of the legislation are urged to conduct a thorough review of all definitions in the Bill including fish to accurately reflect their intended meanings and prevent misunderstandings and legal complications.

CLAUSE 3 Insertion of new section of Chapter. 20:14

The wildlife industry opposes the proposed removal of wildlife ownership rights on privately managed land. The wildlife industry argues that the proposed change conflicts with constitutional property rights and international agreements. The industry strongly objects to the assertion that wild animals are generally ownerless because it is inaccurate and contradicts established legal precedent. The industry contends that wildlife under a person's physical control, with the intent to possess, is indeed private property. The industry questions the rationale behind this change, and argue that the existing framework has proven successful in promoting wildlife management and conservation. Without a clear justification for these alterations, the industry is concerned that the proposed changes could have negative consequences for the wildlife sector.

The Bill suggests ownership is tied to permits, which the industry argues is inappropriate. The industry believe that permits should grant rights, not ownership. The proposed wording gives excessive discretionary power to authorities regarding permits, without clear guidelines or criteria. The terms "captured and captivity " are not defined, leading to potential ambiguity.

Furthermore, the Bill proposes to vest ownership of specially protected animals such as rhinos, in the President, and imposes strict conditions for owning other wildlife. This is seen by the industry as a significant departure from the current common law principles and could lead to the deprivation of property rights without fair compensation. The Bill's provisions on ownership and compensation are argued to be inconsistent with section 71 (3) (c) of the Zimbabwean Constitution relating to the compensation of acquisition of property and the country's international obligations under unspecified Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements (BIPPAs). The industry believes the proposed changes introduce uncertainty and legal risks for investors in wildlife operations.

Lack of clarity in the Bill, potential interference with property rights.  The industry recommends alternative wording to address these issues, emphasizing ownership based on control and management of wildlife, rather than restrictive criteria like captivity or permits.  Another submission angle emphasised the importance of clear ownership rights for wildlife, especially those invested in by landowners. It stressed the need for a practical method to identify individual animals to support ownership claims.

The introduction of gender equality was supported as one of the guiding principles of environmental management in Zimbabwe. However, the Bill lacks a mechanism to ensure that gender equality principles are effectively implemented. For instance, the Bill does not specify how community participation will be ensured or how women will benefit from wildlife conservation efforts.

 

However, the wildlife industry supports community participation in wildlife management but seeks a broader approach and emphasises the need for capacity building and clear legal frameworks. A thriving private sector is essential for successful community partnerships in wildlife-based activities. Recognising private protected areas (PPAs) and councils as Appropriate Authorities is crucial for enabling effective community participation. The proposed amendments should fully incorporate the Cabinet-approved revisions of the CAMPFIRE programme to ensure successful community-based natural resource management. Communities require training and support to effectively participate in wildlife management and benefit from related activities. Thus, clear legal provisions for community involvement, including appropriate authority status for communities and alignment with the CAMPFIRE programme, are essential for successful implementation.

The public advocated for a shared management approach between Rural District Councils (RDCs) and local communities through (CAMPFIRE). This model is expected to maximise benefits for communities. The submission proposes that wildlife in community areas should be owned and managed by the communities themselves. This would empower local people and provide them with greater control over their natural resources. The submission recommended establishing formal community-based organisations or trusts at the ward level. This would enable these groups to participate in co-management structures as legal entities. The submission differentiates between wildlife ownership in protected areas (owned by the State) and wildlife in communal lands (owned by communities). This distinction is crucial for implementing the proposed co-management model.

CLAUSE 4 Amendment of section 4 of Chapter. 20:14

In most of the public hearings, the advancement of community participation in consumptive and non-consumptive wildlife based commercial activities was supported.  A diverging view suggested that placing communities to manage wildlife was not sustainable and brought with its capacity and accountability challenges. The public is concerned that the Bill does not establish strong enough community structures to benefit local communities directly. Currently, the Bill only mentions promoting community participation but does not specify how communities will be empowered to manage wildlife resources and share in the benefits.

It was recommended that the Bill provides a stand-alone and comprehensive provision on community participation to establish mechanisms for communities, particularly women to participate in wildlife management and decision-making processes. It should also ensure that communities receive a fair share of the benefits from wildlife conservation such as through tourism revenue sharing or sustainable resource use programmes.

CLAUSE 5 Amendment of Section 5 of Chapter 20:14

This amendment was generally viewed as a positive development in the Bill at almost all of the public hearings. The public recommended for a balance between experts, equal participation of women and a quota for the youth. In addition, the public called for regional balance representations within the board. The proposed inclusion of traditional leaders in the board was well received across all public hearings including the addition of veterinary and environmental law experts in the board to deal with diseases transmitted between people and animals.

         CLAUSES 6, 7 and 8 were received by the public without any proposal or amendments.

CLAUSE 9 Insertion of New Part of Chapter 20:14

The public viewed the Bill`s provision to establish the Wildlife Professionals Council of Zimbabwe as a welcome move. The public advocates for the inclusion of community representatives in the Wildlife Professional Council of Zimbabwe. Given the emphasis on community participation in tourism, communities should have a voice in decision-making.

However, the wildlife industry seeks clarity and transparency in the Wildlife Professionals Council membership requirements. The industry wants the membership criteria to be clearly defined and based on previous industry consultations to ensure accountability and fairness within the council.

The public viewed the human-wildlife conflict as a very sensitive subject that has been on the increase in the country. It involves huge, often unmeasurable losses to victims requiring many aspects. Generally, the public preferred a compensation model rather than the proposed relief fund. Several funding sources for the relief fund to compensate victims of human-wildlife conflict were proposed. These included a percentage of tourism revenue, CAMPFIRE income and proceeds from special elephant trophy hunting. A process for managing the relief fund, including district-level accounts, signatories and a verification system was proposed. This aims to ensure transparency, accountability and efficient distribution of funds. The public proposes a district-based adjudication committee to assess conflict reports and determine compensation for victims. This would provide a fair and transparent mechanism for handling claims.

On the other hand, the wildlife industry supports the Human-Wildlife Conflict Relief Fund but seeks a shared responsibility. The industry believes that funding for the relief fund should be shared among all stakeholders, including the government and private sector. The industry suggests exploring insurance options as a potential funding mechanism to reduce the Government's administrative burden. The industry emphasises the need for transparency and sustainability in the management of the relief fund.

The industry opines that the Bill lacks specific details on how the proposed Human-Wildlife Conflict Relief Fund will be managed and distributed. Centralising the fund at a national level may delay response times to conflict incidents as local authorities often have to wait for approval and disbursement.

Communities should have greater control over the fund to address their specific needs and respond promptly to crises. The Namibian example of Conservancy-managed Wildlife Self Reliance Fund as a potential model for Zimbabwe was highlighted. These funds provide financial assistance to communities that suffer losses due to interactions with wildlife such as crop damage or livestock predation. The Namibian funds are typically managed by conservancies which are locally based organisations that have been granted management rights over specific areas of land. These conservancies work in partnership with government agencies and conservation NGOs to implement the self-reliance funds effectively.  

It was recommended that the Bill should also specify how funds will be administered and quantified for death, injuries and property damages. It was also recommended that the maximum timeline for settlement should be reduced from 12 months to six months. They argued that lengthy delays in compensation can cause further hardship for victims and their families.

CLAUSE 10 Amendment of section 37 of (Chapter 20:14)

The Bill provides for the leasing of parks estates, which is limited to safari areas in the principal Act. However, the public emphasised the need for ZimParks to ensure the supervision, maintenance and effective management of the leased areas to guarantee their ecological integrity.

It was noted that the proposed New Section 37 (2) is misplaced and inconsistent with the overall focus of Part VII of the Parks and Wildlife Act on "Safari Areas." This mismatch in subject matter would create confusion and organisational issues within the principal Act. The industry recommended for the relocation of the New Section 37 (2) to a more appropriate part of the Act that deals with national parks, recreational parks, botanical gardens and sanctuaries.

CLAUSES 11 to 14 were received by the public without any proposal or amendments.

CLAUSE 15 Insertion of New Section of (Chapter 20:14)

Both the public and the wildlife industry seek greater control over quota setting. The industry believes it has the necessary knowledge to effectively manage wildlife populations and set appropriate quotas. The industry argues that it should have a significant role in determining quotas for wildlife on privately managed land to ensure sustainable utilisation and economic viability. The proposed penalty system for exceeding quotas is seen as unfairly penalising landowners for managing their own wildlife.

 

The ZimParks ability to effectively determine and allocate quotas is questioned due to declining research capacity and resources. While acknowledging the importance of scientific methodology for determining quotas, the submission suggests that the authority lacks the capacity to conduct necessary research and analysis on all private lands. There is a proposal to shift the responsibility for quota determination to landowners, subject to the authority's approval and using standardised methodologies. The submission emphasises the need for strict oversight and penalties to ensure compliance with quota regulations.

There was emphasis on the importance of scientifically based quota management to ensure the long-term sustainability of trophy hunting. The submissions from the public recommended introducing penalties such as licence suspension for hunters who exceed their quotas. To address human-wildlife conflict and increase revenue, the public proposes allowing night hunting for elephants and buffalo in high-conflict areas. The public called for increased support and training for communities to improve their ability to manage wildlife and set quotas.

The submission argues that the current proposal to grant the authority full control over quota allocation is impractical and could lead to inefficiencies. Instead, it recommends a shared responsibility model where landowners take primary responsibility for quota determination based on standardised methodologies, subject to the authority's approval and oversight. This approach aims to leverage the expertise of landowners while maintaining the authority's role in ensuring sustainable wildlife management. 

Otherwise, the industry recommends maintaining the current wording of Section 59 of the Parks and Wildlife Act (Chapter 20:14), which allows landowners to manage wildlife on their property without requiring quotas from the National Parks.

CLAUSE 16 was also received by the public without any proposal or amendments.

CLAUSE 17 Insertion of New Section of Cap. 20:14

Introduces a new section in the Act providing for the private donation of animals outside of Zimbabwe which most of the public resented. The public called for a monetary value to be realised just like a sale when a donation takes place. The public require clarification on the permits and regulations essential for private donations to be exported to prevent illegal wildlife trade. In addition, concerns around the health and welfare of the animals to be donated and exported to prevent cruelty and or neglect was raised. A call was made to ensure that these donations and exports were consistent with the requirements of international and regional agreements, protocols and treaties such as CITES which Zimbabwe is a party to. Other submissions called for the repeal of the controversial clause, permitting private donations of wild animals, arguing that it poses risks to wildlife conservation and tourism.

CLAUSE 18 Amendment of section 60 of (Chapter 20:14)

The wildlife industry opposes the proposed changes to the handling of accidental animal killings. The wildlife industry opined that the proposed law creates a presumption of negligence against hunters, which is unfair given the challenges of hunting in difficult conditions. It also argued that the proposed penalties for accidental killings are disproportionate to the offence and could deter lawful hunting activities. To avoid abuse of the provision, the public sought clarification on what constitutes an error in hunting so that litigation cases based on the provision are minimised.

CLAUSES 19 to 30 were received by the public without any proposal or amendments.

CLAUSE 31 Amendment of Section 80 of (Chapter 20:14)

The public doubted the authority’s capacity to contain problem animals. Thus, these the problem animals should be included in the annual quota. Recommendations from the public were to keep the provision on problem animal in the Act and not repeal it.

Some proposed granting authority to AA status co-management structures to declare Problem Animal Control (PAC) situations and suggested allowing the shooting of female elephants in certain circumstances to address persistent human-wildlife conflict. The public advocates for empowering AA status entities to develop and implement PAC management plans. The submission emphasised the need for training and support for game scouts to manage human-wildlife conflicts effectively.

CLAUSE 32 to 35 were received by the public without any proposal or amendments.

CLAUSE 36 Insertion of New Part of (Chapter. 20:14)

The public submitted that there seemed to be unequal and unfair treatment in terms of indemnity between parks and honorary parks rangers. Some community need more involvement in the appointment and deployment of rangers.

CLAUSES 37, 38 and 39 were received by the public without any proposal or amendments.

CLAUSE 40 Amendment of Section 106 of (Chapter 20:14)

This section provides for a legal mechanism for the authority to retain confiscated property from wildlife offenders such as ammunition, boats among others for use in its law enforcement activities.  This provision directly impacted the livelihoods of the Kapenta fishing industry. This prompted the industry to submit a proposal to amend the terms and conditions of their fishing permits.

To enhance their operational efficiency, the industry proposed that permit holders be allowed to transport their Kapenta using any mode of transportation they choose, provided they have the necessary documentation to prove their permit status. To address concerns about employee misconduct, they suggested that employees should bear full responsibility for any crimes committed during the fishing season. To combat corruption and ensure sustainable fishing practices, the industry advocated for a more active role in monitoring and surveillance activities. They also recommended that the permit renewal period be extended to ten years to facilitate access to loans from local banks.

Regarding penalties for violations, the industry proposed that repeat offenders face harsher consequences such as jail time instead of permit cancellation. They also argued that the impounding fees for vessels caught in unauthorised waters were excessive and suggested a more reasonable rate. To address the issue of basin encroachment, the industry proposed that vessels found in restricted areas be impounded and subject to a fixed release fee. Recognising the declining lake levels due to climate change, they also requested flexibility in fishing grounds, allowing for operations in waters as shallow as 15 meters.

CLAUSE 41 Substitution of Section 108 of Cap. 20:14

The wildlife industry sought broader recognition of Appropriate Authority (AA) status. The industry wants landowners and leaseholders to be recognised as AAs, allowing them more control over wildlife management on their properties. The industry supports the involvement of local communities in wildlife management through RDCs or other designated bodies.

The industry emphasised the importance of streamlining the process for communities to obtain delegated AA status, suggesting potential involvement of independent assessors. The submission recommends that traditional leaders should not be directly involved in managing delegated AAs but should act as facilitators and overseers. The submission highlights the need for communities to be fully empowered to negotiate with business partners and participate in wildlife-related businesses.

CLAUSES 42, 43 and 44 were received by the public without any proposal or amendments.

CLAUSE 45 Substitution of Section 119 of (Chapter 20:14)

This clause was quite controversial and the public where some were opposed to mining in the protected areas completely while others argued that as long as ecological integrity of the land is maintained, responsible mining can take place. However, the public advocated for a more inclusive decision-making process regarding mining in protected areas, prioritising the interests and concerns of local communities.

The wildlife industry sought stronger protections for conservation areas from mining and prospecting activities. The industry believed that all protected areas, including private and public ones should be excluded from mining and prospecting to safeguard wildlife and ecosystems.

CLAUSES 46 to 56 were received by the public without any proposal or amendments.

CLAUSE 57 Repeal of Eighth Schedule to (Chapter 20:14)

The wildlife industry strongly advocated for the reinstatement of Schedule 8 (Problem Animals) in the Parks Act to provide a legal framework for managing these conflicts and protecting both human livelihoods and wildlife populations.

CLAUSES 58 to 61 were received by the public without any proposal or amendments.

5.0 COMMITTEES OBSERVATIONS

Five core issues were raised on the Bill;

1. Human-Wildlife Conflict was the most pressing issue, with communities demanding compensation, improved security and the right to cull problem animals.
2. There was a strong desire for increased community participation in wildlife management and decision-making including benefit sharing.
3. Participants emphasised the need for stronger law enforcement to combat poaching.
4. Adequate compensation for wildlife-inflicted damages was a consistent demand.
5. Concerns were raised about the potential negative impacts of mining on wildlife and the environment.

The specific concerns of the Bill were as follows;

1. The proposal to remove wildlife ownership rights raised significant concerns among stakeholders particularly in the wildlife and tourism industries.
2. While there was support for community involvement, there is a lack of clarity on how benefits to the community will be shared and distributed.
3. Concerns were raised about the resourcing, management and distribution of the Human Wildlife Conflict Relief Fund which called for more decentralised control.
4. Communities wanted more authority in managing problem animals and that the current management strategies for problem animals were inadequate.
5. The wildlife industry sought greater control over quota setting and allocation. ZimParks is believed to be currently lacking the capacity to effectively determine and allocate quotas. Hence, a shared responsibility model between the authority and landowners was proposed.
6. Bearing in mind the possibility of national interests in mining in protected areas, there was opposition to mining in protected areas especially without proper community consultation.

         [Time Limit]

         -[HON. MEMBERS:  He is the Chairperson so he has no time limit.]-

         THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER (HON. TSITSI ZHOU):  Before I came to the Chair, the Hon. Deputy Speaker had mentioned that he was left with five minutes and now his time is up.

         HON. MUSHORIWA:  Madam Speaker, it is a report.

         THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER:  Order, order!  It is only the mover of the motion who has no time limit and in this case, the Hon. Chairperson is debating on the Hon. Minister’s presentation.

         HON. MUSHORIWA:  Point of order Madam Speaker.  Madam Speaker, I move that the Hon. Member be given an additional five minutes to do the report.

         HON. MAMOMBE:  I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

         HON. MATEMA:  Thank you very much Madam Chair. 

6.0 COMMITTEES RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the observations of the joint Committees, the following are the recommendations;

• The drafters should conduct a rigorous review of all definitions in the Bill to ensure clarity, consistency and legal soundness, preventing potential misunderstandings and complications. This review should be completed by 28 February, 2025.
• The Ministry of Environment, Climate and Wildlife should provide a compelling justification for the proposed removal of wildlife ownership rights on privately managed land, ensuring alignment with constitutional property rights and international obligations. This justification should be submitted by 28 February, 2025.
• The Ministry of Environment, Climate and Wildlife should provide for a transparent and equitable quota management system in the Bill that balances the interests of both the authority and landowners. This system should be based on standardised methodologies and subject to the authority's approval and oversight. Implementation should be completed by 28 February, 2025.
• The Ministry of Environment, Climate and Wildlife should include a provision in the Bill that allows for the engagement in regular consultations with the wildlife industry on decision-making processes related to permit fees, regulations and procedures to foster a collaborative approach to wildlife management by 28 February, 2025.
• The Bill should have a provision that clearly stipulates how the benefits will be shared and distributed among the communities surrounding the wildlife areas.
• The Bill should have a provision that clearly specifies how the Human Wildlife Conflict Relief Fund would be resourced, managed and its proceeds distributed among the beneficiaries.
• The drafters of the Bill should carefully consider relocating New Section 37 (2) to a more suitable section of the enabling Act that aligns with its subject matter, specifically national parks, recreational parks, botanical gardens and sanctuaries to improve the Bill's structure and coherence. This relocation should be finalised by 28 February, 2025.

7.0 CONCLUSION

The proposed amendments to the Parks and Wildlife Act have the potential to significantly impact the environment, tourism industry and communities. While the overall goal of protecting wildlife and promoting sustainable utilisation is commendable, the legislation requires careful consideration and refinement to address the concerns raised by various stakeholders. The Ministry of Environment, Climate and Wildlife could create a more effective and equitable framework for wildlife management in Zimbabwe through implementing the recommended changes.

ANNEXURE: Conventions, Agreements and Treaties on wildlife conservation

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

CITES is a cornerstone convention for international wildlife conservation. It is interconnected with other agreements that address related environmental and conservation issues. Below are key examples;

1. United Nations Conventions

• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD): The CBD focuses on conserving biodiversity, sustainable use of biological resources and the equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources. It often works in conjunction with CITES to protect species and their habitats.

CBD protocols  

1. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

 The Biosafety Protocol seeks to protect biological diversity from the potential risks posed by living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology.

2. Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): Climate change can significantly impact wildlife and their habitats. The UNFCCC and CITES work together to address the impacts of climate change on endangered species.

1. Regional Agreements

• African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources: This regional agreement focuses on the conservation of nature and natural resources in Africa. It aligns with CITES' objectives and provides a framework for regional co-operation.

1. Other Relevant Treaty

Convention on Migratory Species (CMS): CMS aims to conserve migratory species and their habitats. It often collaborates with CITES to protect species that migrate across international borders.  

These agreements, along with CITES, form a comprehensive network of international treaties and conventions designed to protect wildlife and their ecosystems. They work together to address the complex challenges facing biodiversity and ensure the sustainable use of natural resources. I thank you.

         *HON. TAFANANA ZHOU:  I want to support the report presented by the Chairperson of the Environment Committee, Hon. Matema on the issue of the Amendment Bill of Wildlife of which we went around the country doing public consultations and hearing what people are saying concerning the Bill.  Firstly, I want to take this opportunity to thank the Government for bringing this Bill at a pertinent time when His Excellency, Dr. E. D. Mnangagwa saw it fit that there was a need for the Bill to be enacted in the section on wildlife environment because the sector needs revamping. 

On the issue of wildlife, we fought for the issue of a Land Reform Programme first, but the wildlife sector was monopolised by few people through the ideas and vision of His Excellency which saw that we could look into the law and make some amendments to some other things which were lagging behind and also working hand in hand with devolution. This Bill is very important because it is giving more power to the community which was not there. 

         There is another issue that I feel needs to be addressed.  Yes, we know that powers have been given to the community but we are pleading that the monies which have been given to the communities must be benefiting the intended beneficiaries and community members as we are working together or hand in hand with the devolution.  We do not expect the money to be used by other people for their gains but it must benefit all the community members. 

The Bill must also include the issue of protecting monies that have been disbursed to the community.  We used to have a campfire.  It is still there and the money was still disbursed to local authorities but the monies were not benefiting the people because sometimes the money was diverted.  I implore the Government to make sure that the money benefits the intended beneficiaries which are the community members because they are the ones who are facing the challenges of human and wildlife communities.

I also suggest that fences or protected areas be put in place to make sure that there is no conflict between humans and wildlife. I also see this Bill touching on the issue of game parks, for example Matopos. I am going to give an example of Matopos Madam Speaker Ma’am. We all know that Matopos was always there and it was a protected area with our ancestors.

 On this Bill, I plead that in Matopos, we must focus on the revitalisation of wildlife because people are travelling to go and see Cecil John Rhodes grave. Matopos used to be a place where people used to go and offer praises to their ancestors and do other cultural rituals. The area was now converted by the National Parks and protecting Cecil John Rhodes's grave.

Madam Speaker Ma’am, can we work towards that to make sure that our area is protected by our ancestors? We must take into consideration our cultural values and not take into consideration Cecil John Rhodes. We must have the opportunity to revitalise the cultural aspects and prayers that were being offered at this place. As a country, we managed to get our Independence. Cecil John Rhodes troubled us very much. If possible Madam Speaker Ma’am, the graves of those who are buried within Matopos must be removed so that we can protect our area culturally. Yes, other Hon. Members can take it as something that is not important but we all know that during the past when the rains were expected, people would go and offer prayers

and cultural rituals to the ancestors at Matopos. When Rhodes came to this country, he looked into our culture. When the colonisers came into the country, they looked into our culture and saw that our God was in Matopos and Rhodes died in Cape Town but they travelled with his body from Cape Town to Matopos, which shows that they were doing this deliberately. We know that the place was put under game park, but can we remove it from the game park and return its cultural aspect from the past where it was a place where as Zimbabweans, we would go and worship our ancestors?

         Madam Speaker Ma’am, our Bill also talks about other livestock. When you import wildlife or animals from other countries into the country, they must change from being personalised to being State animals. If I am the one who had managed to buy that wild animal, it had to be taken into consideration that a black person had been oppressed for a long time, hence he or she must be given power on top of that animal. I really implore and support this report because we worked together with the Chairperson. Thank you very much.

         HON. JAMES: Thank you Madam Speaker for according me this opportunity. Google leads us to believe that some five million hectares or 50 000 square kilometres is under Parks and Wildlife control. This amounts to approximately 13% of Zimbabwean land mass. This area includes eight major parks accounting for 26 848 square kilometres. The balance of this area comprises:

• 3 to 4 lesser parks;
• 13 to 15 recreational parks;
• 15 safari areas and
• Six (6) botanical gardens and reserves, and added to this, a further

3 to 4% of the total land mass of Zimbabwe is in private land ownership, under the appropriate authority permits.

         Further, regional responsibilities come in the form of:

• The Chimanimani Transfrontier Conservation Area;
• Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park;
• Greater Mapungubwe Transfrontier Conservation Area and

Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area.

         This is a huge responsibility for not only the relevant Minister, but for the Parks and Wildlife Director and his Area Wardens. With this responsibility comes the added concerns of:

• Wildlife/human conflict;
• Staff welfare;
• Tourist satisfaction and promotion;
• Roads;
• Fencing;
• Anti-poaching;
• Illegal mining and
• Climate change mitigation, etc.

         In the 1970s, it was calculated that it took approximately USD200 per square kilometre to maintain and run these parks efficiently. This would equate to approximately USD1200 per square kilometre in today’s values. This would require Treasury to allocate some USD60 million to this portfolio. However, since Parks and Wildlife as an entity has been converted from a department of the Ministry to an authority, this in effect cuts our Parks and Wildlife areas away from National Treasury assistance. Parks therefore, have to find the income to run their areas efficiently.

         This move has had far reaching consequences on how our National Parks are managed due to the constant need to seek revenue sources, and could well be the underlying cause of many of the problems relating to this industry. My suggestion at this point would be for provision to be made on the 2025 budget to at least finance the headquarters of ZPWMA in Harare as a sign of genuine commitment.

         The estimated income from areas under Park’s jurisdiction is USD25 to 30 million, which is accrued from gate takings at various parks, hunting, lodge concessions and donor participation. By these calculations, this should leave a Government responsibility of approximately USD30 million per year or USD2.5 million per month. A worthwhile investment by the Government when considering the downstream benefits to the national fiscus through direct and indirect employment opportunities and resultant taxes, etc. However, as a result of the change from department to authority, this burden now falls squarely on the Parks Director General, and by association the individual Park Wardens.

         Any Wildlife Bill should provide an enabling environment for at least a 20 year vision. Can we say we have a 20-year conservation plan or can we say we have a 20-year National Conservation Plan? Parks says they have a Strategic Plan but it appears to be myopic and lacking in creativity and global understanding. This amendment Bill appears to be enabling a dubious and potentially damaging short term revenue enhancement programme.

         As mentioned, the responsibilities of the Parks and Wildlife Director and Ministry are intertwined with many associated concerns of the national and international public. There are at least five major potential opportunities that need to have the Bill backing their outcome, namely:

• Human/wildlife conflict;
• The sustainable harvesting of the wildlife resource;
• The need to cull and the global consequences
• Monetisation of ivory and rhino horn stockpiles; and
• Land and wildlife ownership

Human/wildlife Conflict

         A legal argument made to date is that if wild animals move out of a defined wildlife area (whether State, private or communal), they are no longer under the control or possession of the holder of that land, and hence become resources that can be exploited by the occupant(s) of the area into which they have moved.

         This is the legal concept of res nullius, i.e, once your control for wildlife is lost, it no longer belongs to you and user rights are transferred to the person(s) on whose land the animals have now moved.

         This would mean that the legal land occupants would in principle, be entitled to now kill or capture such wildlife that has strayed onto their land, and to thereby derive benefits from it to compensate for the costs incurred from wildlife-human conflict.

1. However, the occupants of areas which dangerous or destructive animals stray may not have the means (e.g. appropriate firearms) or time to control these animals before they cause significant damage or human injuries;

The opportunity for communal land residents to derive benefits from wildlife are not commensurate with the costs that many of them incur from the wildlife, mainly because financial benefits do not trickle down to them adequately via Rural District Councils and other controlling agencies.

Therefore, an equitable compensation scheme is required to support victims or families of victims suffering significantly from wildlife. This would need to take into account the extent to which reasonable measures were taken to reduce inevitable risks arising from wildlife. A human-wildlife compensation fund under Government administration would be a far less economically, efficient or expedient mechanism than a commercial insurance scheme, for which premiums would be paid by wildlife producers including State agencies.

Laws need to be equitable across the board. It would not be fair for the private and communal wildlife producers to contribute to such a scheme while State agencies (the Parks Authority, Forestry Commission, etc.) do not, especially since most human-wildlife conflict is around national parks and safari areas.

The premiums to be payable could take into account the extent to which each wildlife producer is mitigating the risk of human-wildlife conflict through fencing or other measures so that those who take such measures are not unfairly subsidising the costs arising from others who make no such effort.

THE SUSTAINABLE HARVESTING OF THE WILDLIFE RESOURCE

Sustainability of wildlife harvesting is a central issue in sound wildlife management, although it should be noted that in some circumstances, there may be a need to deliberately make the offtakes of wildlife exceed the replacement rate of certain species that are becoming over-abundant in certain areas.

Ensuring the sustainability of offtakes is often simplistically seen as a matter of the Parks Authority setting scientific quotas. In circumstances of fugitive wildlife resources occupying natural habitats, the degree of science involved in such exercises is highly debatable. Counting wildlife is imprecise, so setting percentage offtakes is based more upon estimates of population sizes than on exact numbers. Estimates can become contentious.

         The most logical approach is to base quotas on trends in population estimates derived from surveys that are conducted at regular intervals not necessarily and in a standardised way. That means that undercounting or over-counting bias will be constant for each survey and the population trends can be roughly determined even if the actual number of animals is less certain. Quotas can then be biased on trends. If the population trend is down, then the quota can be limited; if the trend is up, then it can be increased.

         This is adaptive management. It is prudent to not rely on only one way to get data but to triangulate through several different methods to determine population trends, for example aerial transect counts, road counts, road trip counts, trophy quality data (for hunting quotas), and even to some extent, the WEZ annual game counts carried out in our National Parks. If trends in all these are consistent, then the response of a wildlife species to offtakes can be confidently assumed. The best check on over-harvesting is the self-interest of wildlife producers themselves in ensuring that they do not undermine their own long-term wildlife production potential, just as cattle ranches manage their stock rates adaptively according to droughts, diseases and rangeland trends. It is simply good business sense.

         Excessive regulation of quotas by wildlife authority is not a less scientific approach than is generally appreciated, but can also be a much less sensitive toll for ensuring sustainability than adaptive management by the landholders themselves, while the authority still retains the ability to intervene in situations of clear abuse of the resources base. Suggestions that the wildlife authority can itself conduct scientific surveys of every unit if the land on an annual basis, before allocating any required offtake quotas, are impractical in terms of the resources and technical capacity of the authority and would merely serve to logjam the wildlife industry to the detriment of the national economy.

         The Need to Cull and Global Consequences

         Many countries implement culls of over-abundant wildlife species in the interest of biodiversity and land management, including Western countries, for example culls of feral horsed undertaken by the US Bureau of Land Management across ten states in the western USA.

No countries are precluded by any international or bilateral treaties (including CITES) from culling wildlife as part of their domestic wildlife management programmes.

         It is false but common that the culling of elephants in Zimbabwe is prevented by CITES, which is false - it is the international sale of ivory that would be precluded by CITES (see below), not the culling itself. Indeed, in the past decades, the Parks authority stressed that culling of elephants was not for economic gain but instead undertaken at the national expense, to avoid biodiversity impacts caused by excessive densities of elephants in the habitats of protected areas.

         Zimbabwe could legitimately defend itself against international outcries against culling elephants or other overabundant wildlife species if:

1. This was done as part of a shared policy with neighboring countries,
2. It was not so stridently linked to pro-trade demands under CITES, and
3. It was done humanely.
4. The third consideration is probably the most challenging since it would require a degree of transparency in the development and operations of very professional teams to cull elephants with as little social trauma as possible and to efficiently recover the meat. This meat could then be dried and used to meet rural protein needs provided that the distribution is done in an equitable, non-politicised way.

Monetisation of Ivory and Rhino Horn Stockpiles

         A significant domestic market does not exist for ivory or rhino horn, so any monetisation would require exporting these commodities.

         Such export is unrealistic because parties to the CITES Convention have consistently shown their majority opposition to international legal trade in these wildlife products.  Although Zimbabwe and some other Southern African countries have threatened to leave CITES if this international trade ban persists, there are two realities that would make this a self-defeating move:

1. Even if Zimbabwe and any other range states leave CITES, a consumer state (especially China) would also have to leave CITES in order to become a trading partner, this is highly unlikely in the face of the international condemnation that such a country would face at a time when Asian state are striving to demonstrate their environmental credentials.
2. Zimbabwe would face sanctions from the USA and EU countries on the export of safari hunting trophies and other wildlife products. These countries could go as far as broader trade sanctions by the USA under the Pelly Amendment, which can be invoked against any country that undermines international measures to stop trade in products of endangered species. The threat of the Pelly Amendment was effectively used as leverage on countries such as Taiwan and South Korea to get them to enforce domestic bans on rhino horn trade.

         Rather than adopt a belligerent stance on trade in these wildlife products, Zimbabwe would do better to adopt a position of negotiation over debt relief, conservation credits or other monetary measures that recognise the role played by Zimbabwe in conserving the global biodiversity assets that are represented by rhinos and elephants at considerable national cost.

         Wildlife Ownership

         It is illogical to regard wildlife in a different way to livestock when it comes to the potential for private investment in tradable assets under clear conditions of ownership.  To do so would be to undermine investment in the wildlife industry.  The conditions under which legal occupiers of units of alienated or partially alienated land can acquire ownership of wildlife are well established in the common law that Zimbabwe shares with some neighbouring countries.

         These conditions include that the landholder who is known as the ‘Appropriate Authority’ for wildlife on that unit of land deliberately takes control of fugitive wildlife resources through measures such as confining the animals within fences or taming them.  Any new requirement that a landholder has to get special permits to 1)be designated as an ‘Appropriate Authority’ and 2) be allowed to take possession of wildlife, would have the effect of at least temporarily depriving the landholder of existing wildlife use rights, subject to the discretion of and fees imposed by the national wildlife authority.  This would be contrary to Section 71 of the National Constitution which relates to the rights to own property and use rights pertaining to such property.

         There is no conservation justification for reverting to an outdated “royal game’ concept in which the President takes ownership of Specially Protected Animals such as rhinos, which to date have been owned by those landholders who procured them as private wildlife assets, and have invested massively in their ongoing protection.

         About 90% of Zimbabwe’s rhinos are currently conserved on private land where the significant costs of their protection and management can be met. The CITES Standing Committee and Secretariat noted the following in their report on Rhino Conservation Status to the Nineteenth meeting of the CITES Conference of the Parties (Panama, November 2022); “Populations within management models other than pure State approaches performed better for all African rhino subspecies.

         Thus, ownership of wildlife, even endangered species is a significant factor in encouraging effective conservation and direct investment in Zimbabwe’s wildlife industry.  However, as provided for under common law, if wildlife escapes from the control of a landholder, that person can no longer claim control of those animals, for example, is no longer the Appropriate Authority for them, so cannot claim ownership of those escaped animals.  This is a pragmatic legal position that has stood the test of time in wildlife-based land use situations in the regions.

         Outright ownership is not confused with Appropriate Authority.  The landholder has to meet the definition of an Appropriate Authority to become an owner of wildlife, but an Appropriate Authority does not necessarily become the owner of wildlife unless certain conditions are met.  Ownership comes when the landholder, for example Appropriate Authority effectively and deliberately confines the relevant wildlife species within a unit of land, for example that landholder takes control and thereby possession of the wildlife through fencing.  However, even if the wildlife is not confined within a fence, while it is on that unit of landholder as the Appropriate Authority, has the right to take possession of it through the acts of killing or capturing the wild animals, provided this is done through legal means.

         These provisions have underpinned the successes of Zimbabwe’s wildlife industry and if something is not “broken,” there is no need to “fix” it through new legislative measures that are likely to prove counterproductive.

         The responsibility for Zimbabwe as a nation is to uphold the 2019 Global Deal for Nature, highlighting the need for at least 30% of territorial and or marine areas to be protected thereby ensuring conservation of the planets biodiversity and preventing the catastrophic consequences of a changing climate.  Zimbabwe does not reach this target and in fact, some of these amendments to the Act will be stripping the current protection from vast areas of privately funded and owned properties that provide funding in the areas of their jurisdictions.  I believe that Government includes the CAMPFIRE beneficiary areas which are outside National Parks and private game areas as ‘protected’ to satisfy this Global Deal, whereas in fact these are not protected wildlife areas as such, but merely border onto them.

         Our wildlife preservation and heritage are reliant on the goodwill of the global population.  By this, I mean the proceeds from both local and international tourists, the philanthropic actions of the international donor (primarily the West), together with wealthy individuals who have a passion to protect our wildlife for the benefit of future generations.  As a nation, we are well aware of the importance of the contributions made to our wildlife preservation by this sector.

         Mr. Speaker Sir, as I mentioned, this Bill should provide a platform to construct a long-term plan.  Taking into account not only the five points I have spoken about in detail, but many other pertinent issues that local, regional and international professionals can assist with in a multitude of ways.  Mr. Speaker, there are no enemies here when trying to solve these issues that I have brought to the attention of this august House.  I do request that the drafting authority spends more time on the Bill in a more holistic manner.

         Since the administrative change of our National Parks from department to authority and the subsequent loss of Government funding, credit should go to the Parks and Wildlife Management for attracting the bigger international wildlife organisations to partner them in some of our larger game park areas.  These being amongst others African Parks, Peace Parks and International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW).  It must be mentioned here that these partners also rely on their own donor bases.  Mr. Speaker, it must be noted here that with this constant pressure to source funding by our National Parks, extreme caution must be exercised in not losing sight of one of our National Parks main mandates, i.e. the preservation of our natural heritage for future generations.  This priority should not be compromised.  It is of grave concern that our flagship national park, Hwange is run in a clandestine manner with operators having to sign non-disclosure agreements in order to work there.  Why is this necessary?  It is because of these concerns that the point has been raised as to why the Bill was drafted this way.  There is speculation that this is merely Government policy now, and we in this august House are merely going through the required motions without detailed consultation and consideration of concerns raised above.  This Bill as it stands has the real danger of restricting the voluntary work done by individuals and corporate organisations assisting the Parks Board.  Of greater concern is that it creates an environment of suspicion and distrust, risking driving away current and potential investors.  Could these amendments be a ploy to reap where one has not sown or render private the private sector operators insolvent in order to acquire their properties?  It is hoped that during the Committee Stage, these glaring anomalies are rectified.

         In my opening remarks of the required costing of our National Wildlife areas, these many private players contribute far more than is widely recognised, not only in financial terms to the national fiscus but in the advertising and promotion of Zimbabwe as a preferred tourist and holiday destination.  It is evident that with the financial constraints imposed on the Parks and Wildlife Authority, little or no research is done to enhance the industry.  Much of this research is fortunately provided for by the private sector, the very sector that this Bill is trying to milk.  Serious consideration should be given to the consequences that could result from the loss of this vital component.  Let us not trash this in the name of unnecessary expediency but rather recognise it for what it is and make the key and necessary amendments in the Committee Stage or to even withdraw the Bill for further consultation and use the S.I provision as a short term stop gap to deal with the HWC problem.

         Mr. Speaker, the number of players in the wildlife arena are many and varied.  Further deliberations are absolutely essential to ensure that all these variants are catered for.  For the record Mr. Speaker, other areas of concern that can be tackled with more in-depth consultation would be:

• Security of tenure
• International agreements and constitutional aspects
• Mining legislation
• Smaller parks sustainability and funding and
• Undue concession seekers within park boundaries

THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER:  Hon. James your time is up.

HON. JAMES:  Madam Speaker, I plead for a few extra minutes.

HON. MAMOMBE:  Hon Speaker Ma’am, I move that his time be extended by five minutes please.

HON. KARENYI-KORE:  I second.

HON. TAFANANA ZHOU:  I object.

THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER:  It has been rejected.  I now call upon on Hon. Mutokonyi.

HON. KARENYI-KORE:  On a point of order Madam Speaker.  The other side always object whenever we ask for an extension.  A few minutes ago, they asked for an extension and we agreed.  So, is it fair?  We are Hon. Members of Parliament and there is no reason for us to come here and object to such kind of important debate.  I am just raising it through your Chair to understand why the other side always objects to this side’s extension.

THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER:  Thank you Hon. Karenyi.

HON. TOGAREPI:  Thank you Madam Speaker.  I would want to encourage both sides but maybe because there has been an objection and according to the rules, we cannot change anything.  But I want to say, let us be united - [HON. MEMBERS; Hear, hear,]- and allow for an extension.  I do not see it taking anything from us to listen to one Hon Member presenting.  If it was possible, you would allow him to extend but I do not want to rule.  I cannot rule myself but it is up to the Speaker.  But going forward Hon. Members, let us allow Hon. Members an extension where there is room for extension.

THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER:  Thank you Hon Government Chief Whip.  It is only noble to do that.  Unfortunately, I had already called upon Hon. Mutokonyi to take the floor.

HON. MUTOKONYI:  Thank you Madam Speaker.  Regarding the motion on the floor, it is very important to note that for us to drive the economic development in our nation, we need to take cognisant of the resources that we have and the animal resources.  On the Bill as it is stated, from the issues raised in the report, there is one issue on human and wildlife conflict.  This has been an issue over quite some time where there are a lot of challenges in the farming and mining areas as well and we see the conflict.  So, as the Bill seeks to address that, I think what is of importance from the recommendations is the issue of community participation whereby if the community agrees on a modus operandi to address the challenges which are witnessed… - [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections] -

THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER:  Order Hon Mutokonyi.  May we all allow Hon. Mutokonyi to be heard in silence.  Some of you are conversing loudly in the House. 

HON. MUTOKONYI:  Thank you Madam Speaker.  From the recommendations from the Chairperson, they defined that there should be alignment of the draft where there were a lot of ambiguity, particularly on Clause 3, on the issue of the ownership rights of the animals.  This has to be looked into and addressed by the proposed Bill because it will then bring the issue of the same conflict that has been mentioned earlier.  The issue of quota management will bring sanity in the Parks and Wildlife brings sanity in the parks and wildlife, particularly we have the tourism industry on one hand and also the authority, which is the Zimbabwe National Parks Authority on the other hand. So, the two have to agree from an industry perspective, like I earlier alluded to that the country requires the much-needed revenue through the tourism industry and as such, aligning these laws will enable our country to move forward in as far as generation of revenue is concerned.

So, the issue of policy framework sharing where the authority on one hand and also the industry should then look onto the issues of sharing the proceeds from the revenue that they get from their operations and how it should be handled.  If that is put in black and white, it will actually enable the industry to move forward.

Also, Madam Speaker, there are the issues in the mining industry where we see some of these national parks, these tourism industries, there is also mining happening there. So, it is very imperative that the proposed Bill actually looks into how this is going to be addressed.  On one hand, we require the tourism industry to thrive and on the other hand, we also require the mining business.

There is also the issue, Madam Speaker, of anti-poaching as prescribed and proposed by the Bill.  This is another element that is to be looked into.  This is because lot of animals are in the Zambezi Valley, there is a lot of rampant poaching. So, the Bill should also adequately address such aspects so that it can also minimise and deter the poachers and thereby driving our economy through tourism.

Also, on the issue of compensation on Section 71, Madam Speaker, this aspect also is very crucial and should be looked by both the industry and also the authority as well as the Portfolio Committee so that when the Bill comes in, it will be very clear on the issues and the modus operandi regarding the compensations.

There was the other issue of the property rights ownership as well. On one hand, it is an investment to the people in the industry and as such, they also require to secure their business through such in terms of the ownership. So that will then also lead and make the business owners get more investments. It should then assure their investment in as far as ownership is concerned. So, the proposed Bill should ensure that comes out very clearly because all this will have the effect in as far as the operations of these businesses is concerned.

On the last aspect of the human-wildlife conflict, I am sure that this can be addressed and through the involvement of the community, the community should actually see and understand the benefits of us living together with the animals. As the Bill is being drafted, it should really look into these very key and important aspects. Madam Speaker, I do submit.

HON. MAVUNGA:  Thank you Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to debate on the report tabled. Before I do that, let me wish everyone a melodious Amapiano World Radio Day.  This year's theme is, ‘Radio and Climate Change’, which I think is befitting for this debate.  So, happy World Radio Day. – [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] –

I would like to support the report and particularly focus on the Committee Observation 5 (a) and Committee Recommendation 6.6. The observation says human-wildlife conflict was the most pressing issue with communities demanding compensation, improved security, and the right to cull problem animals. The Committee’s recommendation was that the Bill should have a provision that clearly specifies how the Human-Wildlife Conflict Relief Fund would be resourced, managed and its proceeds distributed among beneficiaries.

Madam Speaker, compensation for damage caused by human wildlife conflict is a critical tool for mitigating negative outcomes for both humans and wildlife. It plays a significant role in reducing retaliatory actions against wildlife, fostering co-existence, and supporting affected communities.

Madam Speaker, compensation does the following: -

It reduces retaliatory killing. Compensation schemes aim to pacify communities affected by wildlife damage, such as crops raiding, livestock predation, or human injury. By providing financial reinvestment, these schemes reduce the likelihood of retaliatory killings of wildlife, which can threaten endangered species and biodiversity.

Madam Speaker, compensation also supports livelihoods. For communities dependent on agriculture or livestock, wildlife damage can lead to significant economic losses. Compensation helps mitigate these losses, ensuring food security and financial stability for affected families.  It also promotes co-existence by addressing the economic burden of human-wildlife conflict. Compensation fosters a more positive attitude toward wildlife conservation. This is particularly important in regions where communities live near protected areas or wildlife corridors, like in Hwange, Kariba, Chiredzi, Gonarezhou, the list goes on.

Madam Speaker, compensation also encourages reporting. Effective compensation systems encourage communities to report wildlife incidents, which help authorities to monitor and manage conflicts effectively. Looking at the Human-Wildlife Conflict Fund, we need to be cognisant of certain issues, which is why the Bill should be explicit on how it will function and be resourced. Madam Speaker, there are challenges of compensation schemes, which are delays and inefficiencies. Many compensation programmes suffer from bureaucratic delays, with claims taking months or even years to process. For example, in India, only 31% of claims were paid in some regions, and delays average 294 days, which is almost a year before someone receives their compensation.

Number two, under-compensation. Compensation amounts are often insufficient to cover actual losses. For instance, in India, fixed rates for crop damage do not account for variations in crop value or the economic impact on farmers.

Number three, exclusion of common species. Many schemes focus on charismatic megafauna, for instance, lions and elephants, while ignoring damage caused by smaller or more common species like monkeys. This exclusion undermines the effectiveness of compensation programmes.

There is also lack of awareness and accessibility. Remote communities often lack awareness of compensation schemes or face logistical barriers such as high travel costs or complex application processes. This limits participation and effectiveness.  Zimbabwe lacks a formal compensation framework, leading to significant hardships for communities affected by human-wildlife conflict.

Madam Speaker, in light of these challenges, I would like to propose a few recommendations when this fund is constituted in the Bill.

• Have standardised criteria. Develop clear standardised criteria for compensation that account for variations in crop type, livestock value and regional economic conditions.
• Improve accessibility. Simplify application processes and ensure compensation schemes are accessible to remote and marginalised communities.

Use technology like Mobile Apps, Artificial Intelligence to streamline reporting and payments. Madam Speaker, also to increase awareness, conduct outreach programmes to educate communities about compensation schemes and their eligibility. In addition, use local languages and cultural appropriate methods to ensure understanding. Furthermore, ensure transparent, establish independent oversight mechanisms to prevent corruption and ensure fair implementation of compensation programmes.

In conclusion, compensation is a vital tool for addressing the economic and social impacts of wildlife conflicts while it has a potential to reduce retaliatory killings, support livelihoods and promote co-existence. Its effectiveness is often undermined by delays. Under compensation and exclusion of certain species; to maximise its impact compensation schemes must be transparent, accessible and integrated with broader conversation strategies.

Madam Speaker Ma’am, by addressing these challenges, compensation can play a key role in fostering sustainable co-existence between humans and wildlife. As this fund is constituted, the Bill should consider my line of debate so that no one and no place is left behind. I so submit.

HON. MAMOMBE: Thank you very much Madam Speaker Ma’am. Let me first thank the Hon. Chairperson of the Environment, Climate and Wildlife Committee for the presentation as made through the report of the Committee. I rise today to contribute to the debate on the Parks and Wildlife Bill. This is a piece of Legislation that seeks to strengthen our wildlife conservation and also the governance of wildlife in Zimbabwe.

While the Bill introduces commendable reforms, there are several critical areas that requires refinement to ensure that there is clarity, there is fairness and ineffectiveness in wildlife management. There are seven key principles that I want to highlight.

The first one is the issue of clarity in the Bill itself. The Bill’s current definition of wildlife is problematic.  It states that the wildlife includes all forms of animals that are wild and domesticated.  This means that the domesticated animals such as dogs and cats could also be classified as wildlife, which is clearly inappropriate Hon. Speaker Ma’am.

         Furthermore, the definition of the exotic wildlife Madam Speaker is overally restricting.  This is making conservation efforts a bit difficult.  I therefore propose a simpler and a clear definition of wildlife Madam Speaker Ma’am.  Wildlife means any wild plants or animal species that are derived from their products that are indigenous, migrated or introduced in Zimbabwe.  This ensures that we have accurate definition of wildlife which will not cause unnecessary complications.

         The second issue is to address the ownership concerns when we talk about wildlife. The ownership of wildlife is a critical issue and the Bill must do more in balancing conservation efforts together with private sector.  The current provisions vest the ownership of the protected animals in the President.  Hon. Speaker Ma’am, there are individuals out there and also organisations that have invested their money in their resources heavily in making sure that the wildlife conservation is done properly, particularly in the private protected areas and communal conservancies.  Their contributions cannot simply be ignored.  I therefore propose Madam Speaker Ma’am, that the inclusion of a provision recognising ownership of wildlife in private conservancies, wildlife that have been purchased for value and kept in private protected areas, shall be owned by the purchaser and also, they should have rights over that wildlife.  This will protect conservation investment, which will ensure that there is legal framework that promotes sustainability in wildlife management.

         The third issue that I want to highlight is the human-wildlife conflict fund.  I think all the Hon. Members who stood up to debate highlighted the importance of this fund.  We welcome this human-wildlife conflict fund Madam Speaker Ma’am, because the human-wildlife conflict remains a serious challenge in many communities, particularly in Matabeleland North. This Bill which is proposing a human-wildlife conflict relief fund is a noble initiative.  However, Madam Speaker Ma'am, if you look into the Bill, it provides a relief where there is loss of life and where there is an injury which is also problematic in some areas because it excludes the rampant damage of property, yet we know that the crop destruction, livestock loss and infrastructural damage are amongst the biggest triggers of human-wildlife conflict. 

Madam Speaker Ma’am, we have seen a lot of people retaliating against the wildlife because their crops would have been destroyed by the wildlife.  I therefore propose an amendment to expand the scope of compensation to include the victims whose properties would have been destructed by the wildlife.  Communities see wildlife as an asset and not as a liability. This was one of the issues that was coming up Madam Speaker in most of the communities where we were consulting when I was also part of this Committee. 

The fourth issue that I want to bring to the attention of this House is the wildlife tracking and also ivory possession.  One of the biggest oversights in this Bill is the lack of specific provisions on wildlife tracking.  Currently, those caught trafficking wildlife are only charged with possession, which is inadequate.  When you are charged with possession, it is a lower charge.  Madam Speaker Ma’am, when you are transporting ivory, it means you are just charged by a crime of possessing that ivory.  To combat illegal wildlife trading, I propose that the Bill must include an illegal trading in smuggling, poaching, capture or collection of wildlife species or derivatives.  

Furthermore, Madam Speaker Ma’am, the possession of ivory should be clearly criminalised within the main Act that we are currently amending rather than relying on secondary legislations such as Statutory Instrument 362: 1990.  We want the trafficking of ivory to be a criminal offence so that we curb our elephants from being killed or from being poached.  Zimbabwe must take a strong stance against wildlife crime, ensuring that our laws match the international best practices. 

Madam Speaker Ma’am, the issue on number five on rationalising wildlife penalties, they should be fair, they must be balanced. Where we must be firm on illegal hunting, we must also recognise accidents that do happen in the field.  The penalties proposed in Clause 19 Hon. Speaker Ma’am, for accidentally killing wildlife are excessive and may be unfairly punishing the responsible people who will be doing wildlife hunting. I propose that there should be a flat fee for accidental killing due to permit breach along with the forfeiture of the trophy. 

I also repeat that the offenders should face disciplinary measures from the Wildlife Council but should not be unduly penalised for a genuine mistake.  In short Madam Speaker Ma’am, what we are trying to say is that during the hunting process, there could be a genuine mistake and we must therefore ensure that the council must do due diligence to make sure that they also recognise mistakes and also deliberate killing of wildlife. We must retain the problem animal in this Bill. This category in the law protects people defending themselves, their families and properties. Those who will kill wildlife in self-defence should not be treated the same as the illegal poachers.

I want to point out the sixth point which speaks about strengthening the role of wildlife professionals. The Bill introduces a Wildlife Council which is tasked with registering and regulating wildlife professionals. This is regulating wildlife and is a welcome move but the Bill is silent on the key definitions and also the membership that is required. We want the Bill to be explicit on who is supposed to be a wildlife professional, who is supposed to be elected in the Wildlife Council. I propose that the Bill explicitly defines who is a wildlife professional. The clear membership criteria must be stated in the Bill and this will ensure accountability and professional standards within the sector.

My seventh point is on recognising private and communal conservation efforts. The Bill fails to adequately recognise the role of private and communal conservation efforts. The definition of Appropriate Authority according to Clause 41 of this Amendment, does not include holders of the alienated land yet they play a critical role in conservation of wildlife. I therefore propose an amendment to explicitly recognise alienated land holders as part of the appropriate authority or designated appropriate authority.

The final issue which is the need to harmonise the legislation which is also the reason why we are amending the Act, Hon. Speaker, the Zimbabwe’s wildlife laws are scattered across multiple statutory instruments. This creates confusion and enforcement challenges. The Bill should be consolidating all the statutory instruments into a single unified framework which includes, for example Statutory Instrument 362 of 1999, the one I have just highlighted. It also includes different Statutory Instruments like S1 26 of 1998, SI 76 of 1998 and so forth. This will create a single reference point for wildlife laws, making them easier to implement and also to make sure that there is clear enforcement.

Madam Speaker, the reclassification of rhinoceros, we need to make sure that it has been addressed in the Bill because there has been some legal confusion, or the Bill will introduce some legal confusion due to the classification of our rhinos. Currently, the rhinos are classified as both specially protected animals under the Sixth Schedule and also as dangerous animals under the Ninth Schedule. This creates legal confusion when prosecuting cases before the courts.

We need to be clear how when we define rhinos and under which schedule they fall into. This is why we need to make sure that we harmonise these pieces of legislation so that we make sure that one animal does not fall into different categories like the example that I have given. The rhino is a specially protected animal at the same time, it is a dangerous animal.  I propose that we remove the Ninth Schedule ensuring that the rhinos remain under the specially protected animals only. This will strengthen the legal clarity and ensure conservation efforts because when it is a specially protected animal, it means also as a Government, we need to make sure that there are concerted efforts to protect our rhinoceros.

In conclusion, towards a balanced and effective wildlife law, Zimbabwe has a rich wildlife heritage. Even our tourism is a wildlife-based tourism. Therefore, our wildlife must be protected for future generations. This Bill is a step in the right direction but it requires key refinements to ensure that the definitions are clear and accurate. We must also make sure that ownership rights are fairly recognised, human-wildlife conflict is holistically addressed, wildlife trafficking laws are strengthened, penalties for accidental killings are fair and appropriate.

Last but not least Madam Speaker, the private and communal conservation efforts must be supported. We want to see a balance in our communal efforts of conservation as well as in the private sector. We must make sure that we balance what is being done in the private communities together with what is also being done by our communities in different areas where we have vast population of wildlife. To ensure that this Bill passes and that there is a progressive balanced Parks and Wildlife Management that protects our people and our wildlife, I urge that the Hon. Minister who has moved this motion will also take into consideration these issues that we have raised, both in the report of the Committee and the contributions that have been robustly made by different Hon. Members of Parliament. We want to see the recommendations from the reports and all the Hon. Members included in the report. I thank you.

^*HON. S. TSHUMA: I would like to start by supporting the issue which was raised by Hon. Matema who is the Chairperson of the Committee on Environment, with regards to the law to do with wildlife. Firstly, I would like to speak to the human and wildlife conflict in our areas. I would like to say to this august House that it is not a new issue. We have been discussing about this and I remember last year, the Minister came into this House as we were discussing that issue to say we have a lot of human and wildlife conflict which are causing people to lose a lot of their farm produce. From my home area in Gokwe, that is one of the areas where we have such a problem.

Honestly speaking, we are losing a lot of people and their livestock is being killed by elephants, lions and even hyenas. If you look closely, you discover that the law is more favourable to the wildlife rather than human beings.

Wildlife now has more rights than human beings. In this august House, this is the only place where we can ensure that these laws also protect human beings.

I would agree to what was said by Hon. Mamombe, to say all what was being said by these Hon. Members in this august House be taken into consideration so that they can also contribute into this law, which we are actually drafting so that we have enough respect for human beings. If somebody loses his farm produce to wildlife, they are not compensated or we do not get anything in return from those wildlife managers. We heard that these game owners are earning a lot of money from international tourists and the like, but these local farmers lose a lot.

         Madam Speaker, last year we experienced drought. In my home area, people lost their livestock like cattle because they never had grazing areas. We used to have a lot of challenges when these animals were coming into people’s farms and destroying their farm produce. If our livestock encroaches into the game reserves, it is a very serious offence. I remember in some of these game parks, somebody was actually assaulted after his livestock entered into the game park. Honestly speaking, in those areas close to their game parks, they must come back to ensure how their livestock can benefit from the game reserve. They should go into those areas and harvest grass and provide it to those farmers closer to the game ranches.

         If you look into other areas closer to those game reserves, you discover that the population is going up. Just like what the bible says, we have to continue with reproduction but we cannot expand our land. We have a lot of areas which were reserved for wildlife but in some of the areas they now have less wildlife. I am proposing that they go out and count the population of wildlife vis-a-vis the reserved land for wildlife to see whether they tally. Other people are actually failing to get land to farm and build their homesteads. It is better if we try to squeeze the animals somewhere and reduce their territory and people should also have somewhere to stay. Human life is very important.

Another issue which is worrying us is that of wild animals which go out of the game park. This is prevalent in places like Chirisa National Park where it is connected to Chizarira National Park. We sometimes call them and then they come to say we would like to escort that animal back into the game park but if a human being is found in their area, they will simply say shoot to kill. Yes, it is very true, they will simply be labeling that person a poacher. From my understanding, people are not actually taking the importance of human beings. It would be good to slaughter those animals for gatherings such as Independence Day or Easter once they go astray. The National Parks can provide meat for those in church gatherings and those in political gatherings. They must avail such because those are our animals. I will take for example, if a father is rearing cattle, if two years lapse without him slaughtering a single beast, then people will simply say there is something wrong. We must continue killing here and there just like what they do in Kenya. Sometimes they will simply go and slaughter or kill an elephant and then equally distribute meat to those villagers. We need to have that practice here in Zimbabwe.

I am suggesting that as we are amending our law, we need to look into such so that we do not continue having more respect to wildlife than human beings.

Madam Speaker Ma’am, there is an issue on humans and wildlife fund. I beg to differ a bit with those other previous speakers to say yes, we discovered in our areas that people are compensated when they lose one of their family members. Let us agree in this august House to say how much do you think should be compensated when someone loses his or her life? I will simply say there is nothing, even if your family loses you and then they compensate you with a million dollars, even if they give birth to ten or more in your family, that will never replace you. There is no amount which will compensate for the loss of one’s life. I am simply saying it is good for us to avoid - prevention is better than acting after the incident has occured. We must not incur deaths through wildlife.

We have various ways which can help to increase security, like electric fence. In other areas, people used to have electric fences powered by solar system. These electric fences were vandalised and people could not refurbish or repair them.  We are kindly asking for the erection of these fences in order to avoid wildlife from coming into areas where human beings stay. In some areas when a human being dies, an amount of USD 60 is paid out as compensation which is not even enough to feed mourners. Let us have a very strong law which will then ensure that their animals must not come out of their game parks so that we prevent unnecessary loss of human lives. We have some of the areas which are around the Safaris and these game reserves. Those are the areas where human beings are suffering.

Sometimes they do not even have water, no boreholes, no dams for their livestock to have access to water but they are making a lot of money in the game parks which are in those communities.  The communities are not benefitting anything but the amount of money generated from selling hives, skins or the hunting programmes, they raise a lot of funds.  They also have to realise the communities nearby so that they also benefit, but in the end they become victims from those wild animals.

         Before I sit down, I would like to look closely into this law to have it amended to an extent that when employing youths to work in those national parks, they have to consider the locals first, those who were born in those same areas so that we do not incur problems where local residents will never have any problems with people who work in those game parks.  Mistakes are common, sometimes livestock can stray into the game reserves. When children are caught fetching their livestock, they are tortured or assaulted.  If we employ children from those same areas, it will be good for them because if they see livestock in the game parks, they will escort them out of the game parks because they would be protecting their livestock from the wild animals. Also, if we face a drought, people around the game parks can also harvest grass to feed their livestock at home.  I thank you.

         *HON. MAPIKI: Thank you Madam Speaker.  I would like to thank you for the realisation of this Bill from the Chairperson of this Committee.  Those are some of the issues which were being left out.  I do not have much to say, Hon. Mamombe actually stole my words.  Anyway, I am happy for that.  The biggest issue that I wanted people to look into is the issue on the cutting and polishing of elephant tasks.  If we look into the current law, it does not allow us to sell those tasks but looking into other countries like Kenya, they are doing it and it is doing them good.  Looking into it also, we have a lot of ivory in here, which we harvested from those elephants which we killed due to drought.  They are stocked somewhere, so I am suggesting that such ivory be sold and have enough budget for the whole nation.  Since the Minister is here, we need to do value addition on the beneficiation of our ivory.  I know that if we make ivory trophies, rings and the like, then sell to other countries, I think we can harvest more funds.  In other countries, they are actually harvesting money from their ivory.  Only in Africa, that is where selling of ivory is prohibited because we are under oppression but other countries outside Africa are actually allowed to sell.

         If we look into the rhinoceros’ tasks, we can raise a lot of funds from there.  We do not have to wait for instruction from those foreigners so that we start selling our rhino tasks.  It is pointless for us to continue bending to instructions from other countries which give us laws about our local ivory.  We have companies which make shoes or hats using those animal skins.  If we harvest all those skins from elephants, zebras and the like, it is good for us to use all those skins but as Zimbabweans, we are actually suffering.  Then, when making laws, let us not waste time on issues which do not affect our people and realise the importance of our God-given wild animals when we have such challenges.

         If we look into companies like Bata, they do not have access to those skins.  If you go to South Africa, some of the shoes which are very expensive are labelled elephant skin.  Some mattresses which are made from zebra skins are actually expensive.  Let us look into such things and ensure that we have everything in order.

         We have another issue which I wanted to look into, that of human and wildlife conflict and punishment given after that.  Let us look at it this way. All these borders which were mentioned by Hon. Tshuma must not belong to those game parks.  We must ensure that we have like 50 kms from where people stay; we need to have CAMPFIRE.  Those CAMPFIREs used to be done by the councils but the funds were not directed to human beings.  It was good for us if we ensure that we have companies from those local residents where they will pay taxes.  In areas like Birchnough, they have a lot of white people.  Now is the time for back people who did not benefit from the resettlement programme, they must be given areas, to say if you have animals which came from a radius within 50 km from the game park - they must have a certain demarcation and they will benefit from those stray animals.  Not only to say people are being killed by wild animals, there should be compensation.  I think it is not clear and what is not clear is, if an animal attacks you at your homestead, if you kill it without giving a report, you are labelled a poacher.  A lot of people were being arrested simply because they would have killed an animal, for example, a lion without reporting to the relevant authorities.  So, there must be a law which is open. Other people were charged for killing an animal like a pangolin while it was crossing their homestead.  Just look into it closely, speaking to this law, it seems easy but when you go into courts, you will discover that people are being arrested without these laws being interpreted clearly.  Most of the laws should be interpreted clearly.  For some of these laws, we believe that if we have a Bill like this one, they have to be translated into our local languages according to different areas. When speaking using court language, people are facing these challenges.  If I go into my homestead to explain that law in vernacular language to my spouse, we can understand better.  Hon. Mamombe when debating, she was using that court language.

         So, if we look at people from rural areas, they fail to understand.  I believe that Zimbabwe is a free country and if we have people from those areas, we must provide such pamphlets in their local language for them to understand such laws in their local languages.  I was suggesting that those are some of the things that should be looked into.  The issue to do with compensation.

 The issue is to do with compensation is not clear because we simply say if a human being is attacked by a crocodile while fetching water in a river but without looking deep into it to say what made this person to go and fetch for water in those rivers. We need to drill boreholes and ensure that people do not go into those rivers fetching water. To sink a borehole, it costs $1500 but you have to introduce the sinking of boreholes and other programmes which will then be funded by those owners of those game parks. They have to introduce them into fish farming, those are some of the benefits that people should have. People should protect and ensure children from those areas who are being attacked by lions are safe because they are travelling long distances to access education. So, in those areas like 50km radius or the areas where we know that there is wildlife, we have to try and build schools closer to those people so that they do not travel long distances.

On the issue to do with compensation, they do not have to look into it after the incident but to look into those areas and deal with issues to do with roads, clinics and assist those people without waiting for an incident to happen. Such things ensure that people will then be compensated clearly not only to compensate using USD40 only, because it means Zimbabwe is not a free country, we did not liberate this country for such things. It has to be a law.

The issue to do with mining and wildlife must be said out clearly in the Bill.  We need to understand how that should be done. We have areas like Mufurutsi Game Park. It has a lot of gold and few animals. We can look into it to say in this game park we have such number of animals and value of these minerals. I think we have to do a comparison. I thank you.

HON. M. C SIBANDA:   Thank you Madam Speaker for allowing me to speak on this very important amendment Bill. I want to start by highlighting that as a person, I have been a victim of problem animals on various occasions and I therefore welcome the amendment of the Bill. The provision of the Bill stands to put the campfire programme on the pedestal for attaining greater heights. The Bill has been welcomed by many rural communities, given the fact that it intends to promote community participation, gender equity and equality in management and conservation of wildlife and in the distribution of the final benefits thereof. This will enhance the preservation of wildlife cultural heritage.

Madam Speaker, Hon. Members, my input will focus on the following areas; the human-wildlife conflict relief fund which most people have spoken about. This section on the Bill talks about giving monetary relief to victims of human-wildlife conflict. Currently, the Parks and Wildlife Act does not provide for compensation of relief to victims of human-wildlife conflict. What happens is that RDCs where we stay, they constitute some local support mechanisms such as meeting funerals expenses and sometimes hospital expenses.

Some RDCs further support victims, for example by paying the fees where possible. These approaches vary from one rural authority to another. I fully welcome the legislative providing the relief for human victims although with the following comments and recommendations.

The Bill further clarifies on how the funds will be managed and disbursed. If the funds are levelled into one national fund, there should be a clear mechanism for the allocation of funds to each appropriate authority. This is to quicken the local response to human-wildlife conflict. I therefore commend that the communities need to be empowered to manage the funds to meet the conditions set for the award of the monetary relief.

I also highlighted the case of Namibia where a conservancy has its own wildlife self-relief fund and Namibia Government then contributes towards that localised fund.  Many communities also welcome this amendment hoping to get relief from problem animals. This has been said by several speakers. The real conflict between wildlife and the human is that of crops and livestock that are being destroyed by wild animals and people are then conflicted as they try to protect their crops and their livestock. The major issue is on how to ensure affected communities or families are protected or compensated when necessary, from the problem animals such as hyenas and some have mentioned the list is endless. 

The proposed Bill is not highlighting these key issues affecting the communities. Our communities will desire a fund that will compensate such losses. I therefore make recommendations that there should be a decentralised management of the funds as compared to a centralised one where in most cases communities, from my places like Mabhenene and Mabhonovono will never receive assistance because of the distance like Harare.  There should be a continuous assessment of crops and the livestock to communities that share a boundary with national parks and safari areas so that they can be assisted in cases of crop failure and the attack of their livestock.

The other issue that I want to also speak to is the establishment and the composition of Parks and Wildlife Management Board which is highlighted in the Bill. The board states that the authority shall be controlled and managed by not fewer than six members and not more than twelve members, of which 50% should be women and this is really commendable. It further states that the appointed six shall be selected from experienced professionals. While this is a welcome and positive move, may I also recommend Madam Speaker, that the board and council should include persons from affected communities. Most professionals and experienced people mentioned in most of the boards are found in big cities like Harare and maybe Bulawayo, who may not have that experience that we have for us who stay closer to communities that are affected by these animals. I propose that this board must consider even people who are closer from the affected areas.

The other aspect is the absent land owners with animals. Most of the land owners, you find that may be absent from the land which has animals. The Bill also seeks to bring transparency in the world of Safari operations. There are vast Safari operating areas which are currently being owned by absent owners who only come during hunting seasons to shoot, kill and loot the animals that are taken care of by the communities. These absent Safari operators in most cases have not even bothered to develop these areas, neither even to employ the local people nor to contribute towards social responsibility.

Where I come from, the Safari operators are not even paying the rates to the local authorities. Theirs is just to collect the funds. They go and do ventures in other places like big cities. I therefore recommend that there must be due diligence in terms of follow up on these land owners.

The last aspect that I want to talk about is appointment of the AAs. The awarding of delegated appropriate authority puts producer community in a position responsible to make key decisions with regards to biodiversity conservation and the management of wildlife related business. Currently, the decision lies with the Rural Development Councils. The provision under the Bill for the communities to be delegated the AA status is a milestone and will catalyse the growth of CAMPFIRE programmes as communities will have the framework for the stewardship.

The following are the recommendations that RDCs should be willing to facilitate and not to frustrate applications for delegated AAs. If the communities meet the requirements for an AA status, regulations should facilitate community applications for AA status and where possible, an independent party can be invited to assess applicants for the delegated AAs.

The last one is, communities need to be fully empowered to a position where they are able to competently negotiate with business partners. They too need to be involved in making and participating in Safari operators. I submit Madam Speaker.

HON. TOGAREPI:  Madam Speaker, I move that the debate do now adjourn.

HON. C. MOYO:  I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

Debate to resume: Tuesday, 18^th February, 2025.

On the motion of HON. TOGAREPI, seconded by HON. C. MOYO, the House adjourned at Twenty-One Minutes past Five o’clock p.m. until Tuesday, 18^th February, 2025.