What the US owes Zimbabwe: Illegally slain fauna as stolen assets

Roaring for Cecil is taking on new dimensions. With the backdrop of a new UN resolution, public officials in Zimbabwe and the US are tasked with addressing the immediate alleged criminal activity and exploring broader solutions that may be necessary to prevent future abuse. Regarding compensation, looking to existing anti-corruption frameworks could help.

While African lions seem not to enjoy specific protection, as a class, under Zimbabwean or US law or Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), specific animals within that class can be protected through various laws and regulations, such as the case with Cecil.

Zimbabwean law surely provides for remedies upon findings of criminal and non-criminal offenses. With poaching, there might also be good reason to argue that wildlife, including Cecil and the thousands of other animals illegally killed and/or trafficked every year, should be considered “property” under the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), a binding treaty ratified by both the United States and Zimbabwe and almost every other state in the world.

The UNCAC obliges states to mutual legal assistance, stolen asset seizure and return, compensation for damages, and defines covered property as, “assets of every kind, whether corporeal or in-corporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible, and legal documents or instruments evidencing title to or interest in such assets”.

“Assets of every kind.”

What is an asset? The International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board studied this question, and how a publicly held asset might differ from those held and recognized by private entities, in a 1995 policy paper designed to survey current international practice.

It specifically noted that as governments are generally considered to be the guardians of national natural resources, public financial reporting should provide citizens the opportunity to understand decisions around asset management. However, even lacking such reporting, the public sector duty of stewardship of assets does not strip the assets of their character as such or the state responsibility to effectively protect the assets in line with public objectives.

It defines an asset as: “a resource controlled by the entity as a result of past events and from which future economic benefits are expected to flow to the entity”.

Given the documented value of wildlife to environmental, economic and cultural ecosystems within a state, this definition seems to apply. And, especially in this moment.

Last month in Addis Ababa, world leaders “affirmed strong political commitment” to creating an “enabling environment at all levels for sustainable development in the spirit of global partnership and solidarity,” reflected in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, a first of several steps in global conversations this year around development financing and climate change.

How meaningful would this strong political commitment to sustainable development goals be if offenses against wildlife, and resulting impacts on development, were not considered seriously?

Paragraph 25 of the Action Agenda concerns recovery of stolen assets, stating:

… We encourage the international community to develop good practices on asset return…We will strive to eliminate safe havens that create incentives for transfer abroad of stolen assets and illicit financial flows…We will strengthen international cooperation and national institutions to combat money laundering and financing of terrorism.

It seems that if an asset is illegally destroyed by an outside party, and the asset therefore loses its ability to provide future economic benefit to the owner, it has been stolen.

The question then becomes how to compensate for the stolen asset? First off, given the public factual record including Palmer’s own admission and the Zimbabwean call for extradition, [if this is not already happening], Zimbabwe could outline the alleged offenses under the UNCAC (possibly including bribery, laundering, obstruction of justice and concealment) and US authorities could then identify and freeze Palmer’s assets, pending possible prosecution (see UNCAC, Articles 31 – seizing assets and 35-compensation for damage).

In an economy that is seeing the desperation of pre-hipster revival Detroit and suffering under the “sceptic wound” of corruption (according to former political advisor Alex Magaisa), there is no moral justification for stripping the people of yet another resource (regardless of size) that rightfully belongs to them, and yet these same conditions make remittance of compensation a challenge.

Mr. Magaisa highlights some guidance through this thorny environment:

The new Constitution of Zimbabwe requires the state to ensure that local communities benefit from resources in their local areas, consistent with the 1992 Rio Convention’s requirement for local benefit-sharing… Some years ago, Zimbabwe pioneered a new and internationally-acclaimed approach to conservation. It was called the CAMPFIRE project (Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources http://campfirezimbabwe.org/). The purpose of this scheme was to involve local communities in the area of wildlife management and conservation – the principle being that those who have a stake and benefit from wildlife will have a greater incentive to protect and conserve it.

Environmental Minister Oppah Muchinguri has taken to Twitter to make the call for resources to improve the program and to evidence a benefit to communities:

@ambatrud @calestous resources are needed for radio communication transport and infrastructure upgrading.

— Oppah Muchinguri (@OppahMuchinguri) August 2, 2015

It is perhaps via collaboration between public programs and offices and citizen participation, as well as other possible forms of public oversight, that much could be achieved not only in wildlife preservation, but also in arming both the public sector and communities with an experience of shared ownership and responsibility and the tools to take on that responsibility.

In this regard, experiences from other contexts could be helpful in thinking through design of responses.

A side event at the Addis Ababa Financing for Development conference mentioned above featured civil society perspectives on asset return from Nigeria, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, France and the US. Their experiences and testimonies are noteworthy and provide inspiration for crafting solutions to politically and economically challenging environments. Likewise, the enforcement challenges of international illicit poaching call for creative solutions as longer term reform takes root.

I summarize highlights from the panel here.

While Cecil alone might not justify the cost of establishing a bureaucracy to manage compensation for stolen wildlife assets, we know that, unfortunately, Cecil is just one of thousands.

Yes, I’m suggesting we open that door.