are greatest threat
to Africa’s wildlife
The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism said last week it will investigate a funding scandal involving the police’s endangered species protection unit. The unit’s commander, Pieter Lategan, takes on his critics
A Zambian representative at a conference of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites) once said most people in Africa do not know the difference between a banana and an elephant tusk, but the illegal trade is organised and very profitable.
The endangered species protection unit (ESPU), a division of the South African Police Service, has been involved in investigating the illegal trade in wild fauna and flora since November 1988. The investigations started with ivory and rhino horn, in crates so dilapidated they practically came apart at Johannesburg International airport.
Suspects were many, rumours even more, and NGOs vehemently fought any legal trade. Poaching was rife. From 1990 to 1995, South Africa lost 78 rhinos and 80 elephants, but this figure was negligible when compared to the losses of other countries. Seizure of 100 tusks or more – close on 1 000 in one instance in Namibia – was not a rare occurrence.
Smuggling is an occupation with low overheads, huge profits and worldwide markets. The chain from the poacher to the end-user is a long and intricate one.
The almost romantic notion of smuggling syndicates, organised by a millionaire trader in an Asiatic country systematically poaching elephants and rhinos in Africa, is not quite true. Even less supported by fact was the idea that these mystical men were under order to kill all rhinos in Africa to increase the economical value of their ivory and rhino horn stockpiles in Hong Kong – or was it Singapore, or maybe Taiwan?
“Experts” on poaching and smuggling of African wildlife, from England, Europe and the United States, visited our continent and told us, with great authority, what was happening and how we should approach our task. Their task was to ensure that wild beasts continue to roam Africa so they may view them while on dangerous safaris, under constant threat of running out of cold beer.
They explained that when de-horned rhinos were killed, poachers cut off one of the rhino’s ears to show to his controller the rhino no longer possessed a horn. We are not sure whether it had to be a left or right ear, but would think that the stump, weighing more than a kilogram, would have been better proof.
Just think of the investment left behind in the bush. Didn’t the experts tell us a kilogram of rhino horn was worth $24 000?
These advisers explained to us that because of the ivory ban, black market prices dropped from $50 a kilogram to $10,25 in one country, and $8,35 in another. We Africans watched them in awe and polished our own act.
We went back to the bush, and what did we discover? The old truth about Africa was still the same: time is on Africa’s side, and if you cannot respect this, it will eventually destroy you. There is simply no quick solution.
The first conclusion we came to was that most elephants were killed because there was simply no reason to protect them. These huge beasts, which destroy crops and threaten to kill the farmers, simply could not compare in economical value to goats and cattle. Besides, they have so much meat and the tusks could be buried as an investment.
Secondly, we had to square up to the fact that the market for rhino horn was not nearly as well developed and lucrative as we were told. The maximum value for rhino horn is $3 000 a kilogram, and there is no difference in price between the horn of a black or a white rhino. This was confirmed by visits to the Far East.
We also discovered that rhino horn was not used as an aphrodisiac. What a shock this was, as we always distinguished between a fake and the genuine product by biting it and waiting for the “reaction”.
We have been told so many fallacies by international “experts” that we arrived at another conclusion, about a very active and lethal group which we have named the “Cream Poachers”. Their profile and modus operandi are easily identifiable.
They always belong to an NGO, or are sponsored by one. They have no formal training in either conservation or law enforcement, and always carry a camera and a hidden tape recorder. They expose the “criminals” and are the “custodians of trustworthiness and law enforcement knowledge”.
What do they poach? Money, money and money again. How? By selling their “expert knowledge” to people interested in the environment.
And in Africa we cry! Our rangers and law enforcers are not properly equipped. In some cases, shoes and ammunition for firearms are a luxury. We are killed by the wild animals that we protect because they know no better; by poachers because they do not care; and by these “investigators” through their criticism. Imagine how many men we could have equipped using money that Cream Poachers spend on laptop computers, or to produce glossy reports.
Where do we stand today? New initiatives in Africa can save our African natural heritage. The Lusaka Agreement of 1994, directed at the illegal trade in wild fauna and flora, creates an international task force that can undertake cross-border investigations, co-ordinate joint operations and handle controlled deliveries.
We can now follow a load of contraband to the end-user, or trace it back to the poacher. In Africa we have the best anti-poaching teams and are in the process of training more.
The international Interpol Subgroup on Wildlife Crime has been founded, and renders invaluable assistance to us. To a certain extent, the illegal trade in ivory and rhino horn has been wiped out, or forced deeper underground – recovery figures are about 10% of what they were in 1992. Poaching of rhinos and elephants in South Africa is a rare occurrence.
Co-operation by range countries in Africa and end-users in the Far East is good. The scenario is one of optimism. Apart from financial assistance, what more do we need in Africa to produce even better results?
For one, our law enforcement structures will have to be updated to cope with possible increases in illegal trade. We cannot even forensically trace the source of illegal wildlife products, as a database has not been fully developed and the forensic tests are too expensive for most law enforcement agencies.
We certainly hope some NGOs will financially assist us in these projects, and we pray someone somewhere will listen to nature conservation law enforcement officers.
The controls over permit systems in Africa are not up to standard. Auditing is almost non-existent. Cites II permits are issued by traders with little intervention from official organisations – and maybe not everyone in Africa knows by now the difference between an ivory tusk and a banana after all.
Since late last year the ESPU has been under attack by certain NGOs. John Ledger, head of the NGO called the Endangered Wildlife Trust, has raised concerns about the ESPU’s involvement in “Operation Jumbo”.
The principal concern is the purported potential damage which could be caused by a report the ESPU published after surveillance of transboundary wildlife crime in 10 African countries last year.
The facts about Operation Jumbo are:
l An amount of $460 000 was obtained from the International Fund for Animal Welfare (Ifaw).
l These funds were declared to the Minister for Safety and Security, Sydney Mufamadi, and approved by the director general of state expenditure.
l The ESPU’s trips to the 10 African countries were sanctioned by each of the foreign governments prior to any visit.
l Ifaw never attempted to influence the ESPU’s investigations, or the report.
l Unsubstantiated allegations about the management of the donated funds, based on mere conjecture, have been ventilated during a recent national television programme and in newspaper reports – and an unashamed attempt has been made to taint the work of the ESPU by alluding to certain “strange practices” purportedly adopted by the ESPU during an investigation conducted several years ago.
Historically, South African efforts at enforcing conservation laws have been ably complemented by colleagues in neighbouring countries. But the relationships established over the years are now being seriously prejudiced by these allegations, as is the integrity of the ESPU and its personnel.
In order to restore these relationships, the ESPU has decided to approach all appropriate structures to conduct an official investigation into Operation Jumbo. This includes the anti-corruption unit of the South African Police Service, the public protector and the Heath special investigation unit.
We cannot allow the work of nature conservation law enforcers to be sabotaged while there are rumours that poaching incidents are not reported, and that in certain countries helicopters are being used to hunt down elephants.
The situation in South Africa has worsened since 1996, the special investigation team of customs and excise has been closed down, the ESPU has only 10 vehicles – two years ago there were 25 – and we are again turning a blind eye to all the warnings.