Hi,

Here's the whole article:

Correction Demanded From Safari Company

Agencia de Informacao de Mocambique (Maputo)
NEWS
May 23, 2005
Posted to the web May 23, 2005
Maputo

The Mozambican government will demand that a safari company running hunting trips into the western province of Tete removes false information from its advertising, Tourism minister Fernando Sumbana told AIM on Monday.

The Harare-based comany, Safaris de Mocambique Lda, run by a South African named Peter Hougaard, has published price lists, which include a "16 per cent government export tax on trophies".

But there is no such tax. Sumbana told AIM the Tourism Ministry does not impose a 16 per cent tax, and he had checked with the customs service, who confirmed that they too levy no such tax.

"We will demand a correction from the company", he told AIM.

"The company can charge whatever fees it likes - but not in the name of the government".

The fees Safaris de Mocambique charges its clients are already very high, and bear no relation to Mozambique's genuine hunting charges.

Thus the fee charged by the government for shooting a lion is ten million meticais (416 US dollars at current exchange rates). But Safaris de Mocambique charges its clients 3,500 dollars for a line - when the fictitious 16 per cent tax is added, the sum becomes 4,060 dollars. 416 dollars of that is for the government - the rest is pocketed by the company.

Similar calculations can be made for every other animal on the list. If a tourist shoots a crocodile, the government will only charge him 3.5 million meticais (147 dollars) - but the total fee charged by Safaris de Mocambique is more than ten times as much (1,740 dollars).

On top of this are the daily fees ranging from 585 to 1,000 dollars a day (depending on the length of the hunt, and the animals hunted), 400 dollars for a hunting licence, 110 dollars for a gun licence, and transport and documentation fees ranging from 250 dollars for a seven day trip to 950 dollars for 28 days.

A very lucrative business: especially as a Mozambican hunting licence only costs 772,800 meticais (32 dollars).

The only thing remotely resembling an export tax which the Mozambican government charges is the cost of the export authorisation form - 10 dollars, in the case of protected animals on the CITES (Convention for Trade in Endangered Species) list, and five dollars for animals not on the CITES list. The maximum that a tourist should pay for these forms is thus 15 dollars.

Charging non-existent taxes is not the only problem with Safaris de Mocambique. Sumbana told AIM that the company is in litigation with local communities in Tete.

The basic agreement with such hunting companies is that they enter into contractual arrangements with local communities, so that the communities derive some benefit from this form of tourism. Such benefits are crucial to persuade local peasants that wild life is worth preserving.

But communities in the Bawa area in southern Tete say that Safaris de Mocambique has broken its agreement with them, and they are trying to take the company to court. Sumbana said the goverment is working through the Tete provincial attorney's office to ensure that the communities have the necessary legal assistance.

Meanwhile, the government is launching a tender for concessions on three hunting areas in central Mozambique, two in Manica province and one in Sofala. Sumbana said that, in principle, contracts for such concessions last for five years - however, the government is under pressure from operators to extend them to ten years or even longer.

The Tourism Ministry's contacts with other countries in the SADC (Southern African Development Community) region indicate that five years is the norm.

The argument that operators need more time to recoup their investment is shaky - a hunting camp in the Mozambican bush cannot be compared to a five star hotel. And as the prices from Safaris de Mocambique indicate, the companies seem to operate with enormous profit margins.

On the other hand, Sumbana admits that Mozambique's basic transport and communications infrastructure is worse than in other SADC safari destinations, and this could be used to argue in favour of a ten year concession.