Op-Ed: Namibia ducks elephant census

C BAKKES & M FARGNOLI

Originally Published in the Daily Maverick AFRICA 30 SEP 2016 12:19 (SOUTH AFRICA)
Re-posted from http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2016-09-30-op-ed-namibia-ducks-elephant-census/#.V-47tCF97IV

Namibian Elephants © Eric Bauer via Flicker

The results of the most comprehensive survey of African elephants ever undertaken – the Great Elephant Census (GEC) announced last month – have a worrying hole: Namibia. Although it was afforded the opportunity to have its elephants counted, free of charge and subject to the highest international standards, it elected not to participate. By CHRISTIAAN BAKKES and MARCIA FARGNOLI.

Namibia’s stance at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) conference presently taking place in Johannesburg makes the reasons for not taking part in the census clear: it wants to be able to hunt elephants and sell ivory. Among the 10 countries of the African Coalition backing the closure of domestic ivory markets – a position agreed to by the CITES working group last week – Namibia was notably absent.

The country insists it should be granted special permission to trade in ivory because it claims to have a stable, growing population of elephants. Its trade proposal was denied at a recent conference of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature in Hawaii. Namibia had already proposed the legalised ivory trade to CITES for consideration at COP 17 being held in Johannesburg this week

In a report to CITES, Namibia claimed its elephant population was 22,711, of which 13,136 live in the northeast of the country. But this is impossible to verify.

The fact that Namibia did not participate in the GEC survey begs the question about the data on which it bases its claim. There are also discrepancies in its poaching statistics. If the population is unknown and is subject to increased poaching or is in large part migratory, should trade even be considered at all?

Namibia’s inconsistent estimates and statements are worrying. With regard to rhino poaching, for example, Namibia’s Minister of Environment and Tourism, Pohamba Shifeta,said recently that about 162 rhinos were poached between January 2015 and August 2016. He later announced that about 125 rhinos were killed from January to December 2015 while another 35 carcasses were discovered in 2016. In the authorised CITES reportNamibia submitted for CoP17, the record of rhinos poached in Namibia in 2015 was put at 90, meaning that a large number of poached rhinos were subsequently left out of the official CITES statistics for 2015.

With regard to hunting, there’s a problem of who owns the elephants. A large number in Namibia’s narrow Caprivi Strip are undoubtedly migrating to and from Botswana and do not belong to Namibia alone. This is one reason why international conservation laws such as CITES aim to protect animals that move between countries. No state can independently decide the fate of migratory animals.

This is highlighted in the SADC Protocol on Wildlife Conservation and Law Enforcement (1999) to which Namibia is party. It states that “each party shall ensure that activities within its jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the wildlife resources of other states”.

While Namibia has persistently issued hunting permits for elephants and lobbies to trade in ivory, these decisions could cause damage animals under the protection of other states.

Namibia also signed the London Declaration on Illegal Wildlife Trade (2014) which binds signatories to oppose the trade in wildlife products where they could stimulate poaching, trafficking or demand. A recent study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research has demonstrated that legal ivory sales only serve to intensify poaching, trafficking and demand. At the IUCN conference it was noted and agreed upon.

IUCN also agreed that “any elephant ivory supply, including legal domestic markets, creates opportunities for the laundering of illegal elephant ivory under the guise of legality”. This is particularly concerning given the hard-to-control, porous borders between Namibia, Angola, and Zambia. Even if Namibia’s elephant population was stable (though how can we know?), it remains almost impossible to control poaching in this area, let alone the laundering of ivory.

The GEC has verified that a virtual elephant genocide is taking place across Africa. Before the census, many experts – including those from the IUCN – believed that there were around 600,000 savanna elephants left in Africa. However, the GEC arrived at a count of only 352,271, far less than what was previously estimated, representing a probable 30% decrease in just seven years.

The numbers of this slaughter are staggering. The GEC claims Africa lost 144,000 elephants since 2007, at a rate of around 2,000 a year. Angola, Cameroon, Mozambique and Tanzania seem to be the worst affected countries.

Namibia is one of the few countries in Africa that wishes to legalise the ivory trade. Instead it should err on the side of caution in accordance with its own laws and international obligations and should acknowledge that the legal sale of ivory could accelerate the demise of the species. Elephants are already facing a continental crisis. Any miscalculation could accelerate their decline. DM

Photo: Namibian elephants (Eric Bauer via Flickr)

• C BAKKES & M FARGNOLI
• AFRICA

Stop the Live Capture of our Marine Species

Whale in Walvis Bay © Marcia Fargnoli

A Chinese company has applied to the Namibian Government for the yearly live capture and export of the following animals:

* 10 Orca (Killer Whales)
* 500-1000 Cape Fur Seals
* 300-500 African Penguins
* 50-100 Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphins
* 50-100 Common Bottlenose Dolphins
* Various Sharks and other species

This must be stopped!

Please add your voice to help us stop the live capture of our marine species in Namibia by clicking on this link and adding your email address to sign the petition: https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Hon_Minister_of_Fisheries_and_Marine_Resources_Bernhard_Esau_Stop_the_Live_Capture_of_our_Marine_Species/

Dear Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Marine Resources Bernhard Esau,

Thank you for affording us the forum to voice our concerns about the marine environment.

We would like to bring your attention to an urgent concern regarding a proposal to the Namibian Government for the yearly live capture and export of marine animals including Orca (Killer Whales), Cape Fur Seals, African Penguins, and Bottlenose Dolphins, as well as sharks and other species which have not been disclosed.

We are alarmed by this proposal. All species intended for this live capture are listed on either Appendix I or Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). These marine wildlife are shared migratory species and do not belong to Namibia alone. These wildlife are specially protected under international law and any trade is subject to strict CITES regulation.  This law requires Namibia to prove that any trade will not be detrimental to the survival of the species. In addition CITES Articles III(2)(b) and IV(2)(b) require that these wildlife are not obtained in contravention of the laws of Namibia.

We appreciate that, in accordance with Namibian law, the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources must follow the Constitution and apply section 3 of the Environmental Management Act (2007) upon its decision making under the Marine Resources Act (2000). 

There is insufficient data available to the public on the status of the proposed marine species, however scientific estimates suggest that several of these species are either declining, rare or endangered in Namibian waters. Removing any of these species from the ecosystem would be in conflict with the supreme law of the land, the Namibian Constitution, which states that all wildlife must be maintained on a sustainable basis for present and future generations as an inheritance to our children. Sustainability requires a species to be available in the long term for future generations and to never be depleted.

In accordance with section 3 of the Environmental Management Act (2007), we, as interested and affected parties, would like our interest, needs and values taken into account in the decision regarding the harvest of live marine wildlife.

We assert that the functional integrity of the marine ecosystem can be badly damaged by removing critical marine wildlife. Each species has an important role to play in the correct functioning of the ecosystem. Removing any of them can cause irreversible damage to the entire food chain. We contend that removing numerous critical species from the ecosystem is unsustainable and can cause a collapse. The biological diversity of the marine ecosystem must be protected and respected for the benefit of present and future generations.

Namibia‘s Environmental Management Act (2007) enshrines the Precautionary Principle in law to ensure that cautious decisions are made with regard to the wildlife. In order to ensure sustainability of the entire marine ecosystem, we urgently request the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources to err on the side of caution and be careful of an unintended collapse caused by removing marine wildlife from the ecosystem.

Damage to the marine wildlife and ecosystem must be prevented.

We thank you in advance for taking into account our serious concerns for our marine wildlife and the functional integrity of the marine ecosystem.

We urge you to deny any permit application to capture and export live marine animals. As part of the public consultation process, we trust that our concerns will be heard.

Please add your voice to help us stop the live capture of our marine species in Namibia by clicking on this link and adding your email address to sign the petition: 

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Hon_Minister_of_Fisheries_and_Marine_Resources_Bernhard_Esau_Stop_the_Live_Capture_of_our_Marine_Species/

Migration to Extinction

CHRISTIAAN BAKKES and MARCIA FARGNOLI

Elephants in Etosha National Park
© Marcia Fargnoli

A Blank Space on the Map

On the official map of the Great Elephant Census (GEC) there is a conspicuous blank space cutting through a migrating elephant population. This blank space is the Zambezi region of Namibia- the narrow strip formerly known as the Caprivi. This is the only place in the region where elephant population statistics are unverified.

It is part of the Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation area. This area includes Northern Botswana, South-Eastern Angola and South-Western Zambia, with Namibia wedged in between.

According to the statistics of the GEC, South-Western Zambia is showing an alarming decline in elephant numbers at more than 5%. Angola shows a decline of 2-5%. Botswana's elephant numbers are rated as stable with a population of approximately 130,000. 

In between lies Namibia. In a recent CITES report Namibia has given its official elephant numbers as 22,711, of which 13,136 live in the North-East of the country.

It is, however impossible to verify those numbers, because Namibia decided not to be part of the GEC. Of all the countries with substantial elephant populations, Namibia was the only one that elected not to participate.

Namibia is also one of the few countries in Africa that aims to legalise the ivory trade.

Elephants in the Ugab River
© Christiaan Bakkes

The Trade Debate

                                                                                                     

A study published in June 2016 by the National Bureau of Economic Research produced damning evidence that the 2008 once-off sale in legal ivory served to fuel the demand, resulting in increased elephant poaching.   The researchers from Princeton University and the University of California-Berkeley demonstrate in their study that the legal sale directly caused the increase in illegal ivory production by about 66 percent resulting in the deaths of an estimated 100,000 elephants. Although the sale was approved by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) with the intention to satisfy the ivory demand in China and Japan, it only served to have the opposite effect.

Namibia took part in that sale.

According to Solomon Hsiang, one of the authors of the study, now that the data has proven that legal ivory sales result in the increase in poaching, legalizing the sale of ivory should not be considered again. Yet, Namibia, along with Japan, aimed to get approval to allow for a regulated domestic ivory trade at an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Congress in Honolulu, Hawaii.  The Congress did not approve the amendments proposed by these two countries and upheld the motion to close all domestic ivory trade. 

In addition, many African countries have proposed for all African elephants to receive the highest protection with no option for trade in ivory under an Appendix I listing by CITES.  In opposition, Namibia has submitted a proposal that their elephants remain on Appendix II which would allow for a future legal trade in ivory under another proposal.  These proposals are currently being deliberated at the CITES Conference of the Parties (CoP 17) in Johannesburg.

Elephants in the Hoanib River
© Marcia Fargnoli

Maintaining Wildlife on a Sustainable Basis

Elephants and rhinos are specially protected in Namibia and according to the Constitution must be maintained on a sustainable basis for present and future generations. Sustainability requires a species to be available in the long term for future generations and to never be depleted.  Namibia‘s Environmental Management Act (2007) enshrines the Precautionary Principle in law to ensure that cautious decisions are made with regard to the wildlife.

The Namibian government encourages hunting and the exporting of trophies as part of the National Policy on Tourism for Namibia (2008) and the Policy on Tourism and Wildlife Concessions on State Land.  In these policies, the government claims that money generated from such practices can be used to protect the wildlife and discourage poaching by the communities. In 2016, Namibia’s Cabinet directed the Ministry of Environment and Tourism to “actively campaign against any attempt to ban or restrict hunting and the export of wildlife products from Namibia.”

The Ministry of Environment and Tourism “has established a national annual export quota through CITES of 90 trophy hunted elephants per year (180 tusks per year).”Proponents of elephant hunting and trading in their trophies claim that it is sustainable. 

However, especially in the event of a decreasing elephant population or a rise in poaching, it is practical to question how it can be considered sustainable to legally hunt or trade in a species that is facing a poaching crisis and is vulnerable to extinction.

It could be disastrous if Namibia has overestimated how many elephants it has or underestimated the poaching crisis.  In this situation, the result of hunting, poaching and trading in ivory could seriously drive the species further towards extinction. 

Here, the Precautionary Principle must be implemented in accordance with Namibia‘s Environmental Management Act (2007) to ensure sustainability of the species.  When the exact result from the combination of hunting, poaching and trading is not fully known, the adopted policy must err on the side of caution and be careful of unintended consequences. 

Elephant in the Zambezi Region
©Marcia Fargnoli

Elephant Population Status

In order to understand the best policy decisions with regard to protection of wildlife such as elephants, it is critical to understand the accurate status of the species.

With regard to the actual state of elephants in Africa, the Great Elephant Census (GEC) recently announced its findings after conducting a 2 year intense survey. This continental elephant count produced startling results.

Before the census, many experts, including those from the IUCN, believed that there were around 600,000 savanna elephants left in Africa. However, the GEC produced a count of only 352,271 elephants, far less than what was previously estimated, representing a 30% decrease in just seven years.

According to a recent CITES report, Namibia claims to have a stable and growing elephant population of 22,711 elephants.Namibia had the opportunity to have their elephant statistics subjected to the highest international standards with expert peer review under the GEC at no cost to Namibia, but it chose not to.  If Namibia has such a large population of elephants, why did it choose not to be part of the GEC?  The reason is unknown.

During the GEC, many elephants were fitted with satellite collars in order to plot migration routes and cross border movements. The monitoring of elephant movement in such a manner brought important evidence to light. For example, the satellite images of the census clearly illustrate how collared elephants that lived in Zambia, Angola and Namibia in 2011 moved and became concentrated together in Northern Botswana by 2014.

Botswana came out of the census as the African country with the most elephants at 130,000.

When questioning the actual state of Namibia’s elephants, it is important to note that Namibia has submitted official statistics to CITES that states that some 13,136 of Namibia’s 22,711 elephants are located in the north-eastern part of the country. This makes them part of the migratory herds that move freely between Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia and Angola. Many of them could already be included in Botswana’s count and Namibia may be overestimating how many elephants it currently has. 

Having the correct statistics should help national and international authorities to make the correct decisions on how best to protect the species. It is difficult to be sure for Namibia, as the data has unfortunately not been verified. 

Elephants in the Hoanib River
© Marcia Fargnoli

The Poaching Crisis

The GEC has verified reports on an elephant genocide across Africa. The numbers of this slaughter are staggering. The research team of the GEC claim Africa has lost 144,000 elephants since 2007, at a rate of around 27,000 a year. Angola, Cameroon, Mozambique and Tanzania seem to be the worst affected countries.

In Namibia, there are some inconsistencies in poaching statistics.  With regard to rhinos, for example, recently Namibia’s Minister of Environment and Tourism, Pohamba Shifeta, stated in a press release that approximately 162 rhinos have been poached between January 2015 and August 2016. The Minister disclosed that about 125 rhinos were killed from January to December 2015 alone while another 35 carcasses were discovered in 2016. There is a discrepancy in official reports, however. In the authorised CITES report submitted for CoP17, the endorsed record of rhinos poached in Namibia in 2015 is 90 rhinos, meaning that a large number of poached rhinos were left out of the official CITES statistics for 2015. 

In comparison, “elephant mortalities this year rose to 31 animals, bringing the total since January 2015 to 80.” By adding up the statistics from CITES and official press releases, it can be ascertained that at least 274 elephants have been poached in Namibia since 2012. One must question whether there are any further discrepancies in these statistics.

Statistics aside, poaching is on the increase and it does not appear like the problem will be under control any time soon as criminal syndicates have started to shift their attention from East Africa to the southern African herds.  In Namibia, there is a failure in enforcement with many outstanding poaching incidents, few perpetrators being caught and even less poaching cases going to court.  The number of cases that have been successfully completed and those still on the court roll are not fully disclosed to the Namibian public.

In the rare cases where poachers or traders end up in court, they get pitifully light sentences that serve as no deterrent. Recently, five convicted black rhino poachers were sentenced to a mere six years in prison. Two smugglers caught with pangolin got off with a meager N$300 (US$23) fine each. There is very little deterrence against poaching in Namibia.

Minister Shifeta laments “the fact that many of those arrested have previously been released on bail, and gone back into repeating their crimes”  However, Deputy Prosecutor General Philippus Brink says “that prosecutors do object to bail as far as they can but are also dependent on other role players such as the police to provide them with information that can constitute a legal objection to bail.” In Namibia, there remain serious concerns with failures on all levels from insufficient enforcement, incomplete investigations, missing evidence, overburdened understaffed courts and inadequate penalties. 

Aerial photograph of Migrating Elephants in the Zambezi Region
© Marcia Fargnoli

Unintended Consequences

Namibia asserts that it should be granted special permission to trade in ivory because it claims to have a stable growing population of elephants. Although the IUCN recently denied the ivory trade proposal, Namibia has again proposed the legalized ivory trade to CITES. 

Given the fact that Namibia did not participate in the GEC to subject their elephant data to expert peer review leaves a question about the actual status of Namibia’s elephants.  One can even question the poaching statistics which show signs of discrepancies.  If the population is not stable, is subject to increased poaching or is in large part migratory, should trade even be considered at all?

A large portion of Namibia’s elephants are likely migrating between countries.  Those elephants do not belong to Namibia alone.  This is one reason why international conservation laws such as CITES are made: to protect animals that roam between countries.  No country can independently decide the fate of migratory animals.

This is highlighted in the SADC Protocol on Wildlife Conservation and Law Enforcement (1999) which Namibia is a party to.  It states that “Each party shall ensure that activities within its jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the wildlife resources of other states.”  Namibia has been persistent in issuing hunting permits for elephants and making proposals to international authorities to allow for Namibia to trade in ivory, but these decisions could cause damage to elephants that are migratory and are therefore resources of other states. 

Namibia also signed the London Declaration on Illegal Wildlife Trade (2014) which clearly states that all signatories must oppose the trade in wildlife products where they could stimulate poaching, trafficking or demand. The recent study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research has demonstrated that legal ivory sales only serve to intensify poaching, trafficking and demand.

Experts also agreed at the recent IUCN Congress “that any elephant ivory supply, including legal domestic markets, creates opportunities for the laundering of illegal elephant ivory under the guise of legality.”  This is particularly concerning given the hard-to-control, porous borders between Namibia, Angola, and Zambia.  Even if Namibia’s elephant population is currently stable, it remains nearly impossible to control poaching in this area, let alone the laundering of ivory. 

The Precautionary Principle suggests that, in the absence of certainty, the appropriate course of action is to err on the side of caution and be careful of unintended consequences.

In the name of conservation and species survival, Namibia should err on side of caution in accordance with its own laws and international obligations and should acknowledge that the legal sale of ivory could accelerate the demise of the species.  Elephants are already facing a continental crisis.   Any miscalculation could lead to extinction. Should Namibia not now join hands with its neighbours by committing itself to closing the ivory market in order to save the species?

Elephants in the Hoanib River
© Marcia Fargnoli

Youth unite against wildlife crime

CHRISTIAAN BAKKES and MARCIA FARGNOLI

Originally published in the Namibian News - Environment | 2015-11-19
Re-posted from http://www.namibian.com.na/index.php?page=archive-read&id=144459

© Christiaan Bakkes

"Dear Dr. Hage Geingob
About my Wildlife.
I am so glad to get this opportunity to cry out for my Heritage that my forefathers left me to benefit from. In our Namibia I know that God blessed us with wild animals and I am crying for them because people from our country are killing them and selling their horn for money to other countries."

So writes a grade 8 student, from Petrus !Ganeb Secondary School in Uis.

She is echoed by another, 16 year old in grade 8B
"We are the future. Save our Wildlife. Thank you for listening to us."

Another, from the same school has this to say.

"I am very concerned about our wildlife and the problems we are facing today. The rhinos are dying out, followed by other animals and it is really scaring us that our environmental chain is broken and we cannot do anything about it. Only the adults can do something but you are neglecting our calls."

From Okaukuejo Combined School, a Grade 9 student, also has something to say: "We need this poaching of rhinos to stop in our Regions and places. Stop wildlife crime. We are not happy at all. Our country needs to live with peace and no more poaching is allowed."

A class mate, also from Okaukuejo wants "the Government not to let go of all the poachers unpunished. Paying money will not bring back the rhinos and elephants hunted. They must get a severe punishment."

These are but a few comments from hand written letters by Grade 8 and 9 students from schools in areas that are threatened by wildlife crime. All in all seventy-four letters have been written to the Honourable President Dr. Hage Geingob by concerned students. These letters are on their way to the office of the President.

This is a result of a school advocacy campaign initiated by the Land, Environment and Development (LEAD) Project of the Legal Assistance Centre (LAC). The aim of the campaign is to focus the attention of the youth on the threat of wildlife crime.

Seven schools were identified in high risk wildlife crime areas in Erongo, Kunene, and Oshikoto Regions. These schools include Okaukuejo Combined School, Petrus !Ganeb Secondary School and Brandberg Primary School at Uis, Kamanjab Combined School, Warmquelle Primary School, Elias Amxab Combined School at Sesfontein and Purros Ondao Mobile School.

During the past three months, talks and PowerPoint presentations were given and videos were shown to students of these schools. All in all 975 pupils and 38 teachers were addressed. In initial return visits, higher grade students of two schools volunteered to write letters to the President in their free time during their exam period.

The message is clear: Rhino and elephant poaching as well as trafficking in wildlife products are connected with organised crime. If you deal in rhino horn and ivory, you are aiding and abetting international crime syndicates, also involved in human trafficking, drug smuggling, gun running and terrorism. The example of Joseph Kony, the leader of the terrorist organization the Lord’s Resistance Army, is used. Ivory from poached elephants is used by Kony to fund the arms and ammunition that terrorise civilians. Children are then abducted to be trained as child soldiers in Northern Uganda, South Sudan, Chad and the Central African Republic.

An image of Chumlong Lemtongthai, pointing his pistol at the camera is shown. He is a notorious Thai poacher and racketeer that was sentenced to 40 years in prison in RSA. “Will you do business with a man like this?” is the question asked to the students.

Maps presented show the main smuggling routes from Africa to the Far East. Graphs and statistics demonstrate the extent of the wildlife crime crisis. Some 96% of the world's black rhino have been poached according to the World Wildlife Fund.

The ecological importance of wildlife is also discussed. The presentation covers the moral issue around poaching and the need to change the accepted norm. Local initiatives, like the Black Mambas, an all-female anti-poaching unit in South Africa, are also shown.

Actual examples of local poaching incidents are also given. The December 2012 case near Mbakondja in the Palmwag concession, where a black rhino cow was poached and her calf left alive next to her mutilated body is discussed with the students. The seven-month-old calf stood for four days in the relentless heat next to her dead mother, deprived of milk and comfort. The female calf died before she could be saved. This tale has a profound effect on students and teachers alike. It illustrates the cruelty of the poacher.

In many impoverished areas, rhinos and elephants face extinction. Poverty is not an excuse for poaching. In fact, poachers steal from future generations. Poachers make it much more difficult for the next generation to survive by taking away critical parts of the ecosystem and lessening livelihood opportunities in rural areas that disappear along with the wildlife.

The presentations are visual and comprehensive to students. They are the future leaders of this country and must take action. The Constitution of Namibia states that the environment and wildlife must be protected for current and future generations.

Pilot screenings of Linda de Jager's SAN animation film, /Gasa, have also been shown at various schools. It bears a beautiful message to young and old alike and explains the importance of the old values of conservation and people living with wildlife. It is very popular among all students. At Purros, a respected community elder expressed satisfaction that the old stories are still being told.

Principal Shipahu Erastus at Okaukuejo commented on the whole program.

'This is good for the present generation. If they learn now they will improve. They will have an interest and not poach. The youth will have an impact on others around them. In this case, the message will go far.'

The mentor of the school's Eco Club Mrs. Paula Goagases expressed the wish to take it further and organise marches and campaigns within Etosha National Park.

The response to the presentations have been very positive. At Warmquelle, 120 students and 7 teachers crammed into one classroom to attend. Other teachers and students had to be turned away for lack of space. At Sesfontein, 258 students and 9 teachers gathered in the hall.

Concern has been expressed about a recent case where a school principal was arrested for poaching in the North. What example is he to his students?

The principals and teachers of all the schools represented are very supportive of the programme. It is encouraging to see the interest and positive reaction of the youth.

"Some of the students get very upset by what is happening. Many want to know how they can help to make a difference. It gives us hope for the future." a LAC team member commented. Many of the students wrote down the contact details of the LAC in order to report wildlife crime.

The foundation has been laid. The LEAD project team of the LAC plans to return to the seven schools with more discussions about conservation and screenings of wildlife documentaries. When they feel the goals have been achieved, they will expand the project into other areas that are threatened by wildlife crime.

The initiative is sponsored by German Corporation for International Cooperation (GIZ) and the Pupkewitz Foundation and actively supported by Wilderness Safaris Namibia and Taleni Africa.

End of the game

CHRISTIAAN BAKKES

Originally published in the Namibian News - Environment | 2015-03-19
Re-posted from http://www.namibian.com.na/index.php?page=archive-read&id=134899

© Marcia Fargnoli

IT was a time to rejoice. It seemed to be the only logical way forward. The path had been laid out for us. The truth shone as clear as an unmuddied lake. We were bright-eyed and idealistic. Inspired and energetic. A brave new world.

It was the year 1995.

I had just joined Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation (IRDNC), a WWF-funded NGO that was charged with the responsibility of empowering local rural communities through conservation. The goal was to establish communal conservancies that would enable the people to take ownership of their wildlife and natural resources.

The year 1995 was also a time of good rain. The best in human memory. Springbok fawns abounded across the veld.

It was with pride that I drove my bakkie from village to village, seeking out the community game guards. I was amazed by the beauty of the landscape and the free-ranging wildlife. I was especially proud of the panda sticker on the bakkie door.

For me too it was a new beginning. I hailed from the Kruger Park where local people were kept away from wildlife with fences and guns. I was born into and benefited from an oppressive system. It was time to make amends. Give something back.

We were going to make impoverished rural communities benefit from their wildlife. At the same time we were going to conserve that same wildlife. I was part of that process.

For the last twenty years I was part of that process. I still am.

I remember the exciting conception period. Befriending the community members by keeping elephants out of their meagre fields. Winning their trust by saving their crops. Training community game guards and doing game counts. 

The communal conservancy legislation was passed through parliament in 1996.

After three years in IRDNC I joined a safari company in the Kunene region. I witnessed game lodges springing up all over communal lands. I saw agreements between conservancies and tour companies. Joint ventures for the benefit of all. Private operators would pay communities for the privilege of tourism on their land. Local community members would be employed and trained and empowered. I saw many young men and women grow into highly professional adults. It was a wonderful period of growth. It felt good.

The conservancy policy went even further. The conservancies were granted hunting rights. The conservancies made agreements with professional hunting enterprises. The conservancy members could also hunt for the pot and own use.

This was after game counts were conducted and quotas were worked out.

The good rains of 1995 turned into a wet cycle that lasted until 2011. It was a time of bounty. Plains game proliferated and black rhino numbers increased. More newborn elephant calves were noted among the small desert-adapted herds. The desert lion made a remarkable comeback. What a pleasure it was to take foreign travellers on a safari through this arid African Eden.

Soon the world took notice. Conservation awards started pouring in. Namibia was hailed as the world leader in community-based conservation.

There was enough for everybody. The money came trickling in. First slowly and then a little faster.

It was never a flood. But it was enough to whet the appetite for more.

Promises of wealth and riches created expectations. The expectations became too big. Then the rot set in.

The first signs of the decimation of wildlife came with the introduction of the shoot and sell policy. I first encountered it on the Giribes plains on the boundary of the Purros and Sesfontein conservancies. In this policy, outside contractors get permission to shoot plains game on a large scale to supply their butcheries elsewhere. This seemed to be a profitable venture for the conservancies.

I saw freezer trucks parked on the plains while gemsbok, springbok and zebra were being slaughtered and loaded. Bakkies were driving in different directions, returning with dead animals to be transported. On my second encounter with these shooting teams, the back registration plates of the freezer trucks were covered with duct tape.

In 2010, I encountered such a shooting party on the border of the Skeleton Coast Park. It was late November and a desert rain shower transformed the gravel plains to a green flush. There was a concentration of gemsbok, including several nursery herds. The cows had already given birth and it was no time or place to hunt gemsbok. The shooting parties of three bakkies were driving off-road and indiscriminately shooting into these herds. I reported this to the Ministry of Environment and Tourism and was assured that the practice was perfectly legal. There was no MET official present during the shoot.

Later there were newspaper reports of a large quantity of dead zebras being left out in the sun to rot, after one of these freezer trucks broke down.

The road between Sesfontein and Purros is a beautiful drive. It used to abound with gemsbok and springbok. After shoot and sell was introduced, wildlife visibly diminished.

Elsewhere, signs of this practice also became visible.

Another alarming occurrence was the high mortality rate of elephants in the Purros conservancy. A recent study argues that the Hoarusib – Hoanib river elephant population has declined by 30% in the last 10 years. At least two cows and one bull were shot illegally. Another was wounded, recovered and then disappeared. Another was shot after it killed a tourist at a campsite. One died of complications with a radio collar. Orphaned calves disappeared and three elephants have emigrated upriver. The total resident elephant population at Purros at present numbers six individuals.

Purros has always served as a model of people and elephant co-existing and benefiting each other through tourism. That does not seem to be the case any more.

Black rhino poaching in the communal areas started in December 2012. The last isolated incident before that was two decades ago. The number of poached rhinos varies from source to source, the most conservative number being 18 in the Palmwag and Etendeka concessions and four more in the Uukwaluudhi conservancy to the north-east. I do not speak for poached rhinos outside the communal lands. The current spate of poaching has sparked bitter debate and accusations and counter-accusations. I will not dwell on that.

The facts are that only one arrest and conviction had been made – of a poacher caught at the beginning of the onslaught. Evidence points towards organised crime and intimidation. There is a cloak of silence over events. It seems as if conservancy or community members are harbouring criminals. Critically endangered species that stand as symbols of successful community-based conservation are being slaughtered. Why now? Why after all these successes?

Where have we gone wrong? Where are the flaws in our system? 

When I studied nature conservation in the mid-eighties it was drummed into our heads: “If it pays it stays.”

It seems that even for conservationists, wildlife and wilderness have no place if they cannot be of financial value to people. Never was this doctrine more evident than in community-based conservation in Namibia. It is all about money.

Financial benefits to the community were the focus. National pride, ethics, aesthetics and sound ecological practices shared a sad second place. If any place at all.

Everything must have a price tag

Our relentless quest for financial benefit bred one thing: GREED.
It set the stage for disaster. Enter a higher bidder and all principles go out the window.

The higher bidder has entered. Unscrupulous foreign investors, with a lot of financial backing, have come with a new incentive: wildlife products. Rhino horn, ivory, pangolin, lion bones, meat, hides, organs. Everything now has a higher price. It is “good business”.

Will we stand up to this new threat? Will good people be bought and corrupted? Will our ethics and principles and our connection to the wilderness prevail?

Our clinical and non-emotional approach towards wildlife and wilderness will not be enough to stem the new wave of exploitation. We must look into our hearts again. We must remember that we are part of nature. Not owners and manipulators. This earth will not tolerate our greed forever.

We as Namibians stand to lose our reputation as splendid conservationists. A reputation means nothing until you have lost it.

The other day we travelled for several days around the Brandberg. It is a magnificent area. Pristine arid habitat. We travelled through four communal conservancies. It was an area renowned for its desert-adapted wildlife. The ancient art on its rock faces bears testimony to that. It is also known as the most bio-diverse place in Namibia. The first rains have fallen and the grass was in seed. Our total game count was: Two Cape fox, three springbok and eight giraffe.

It seems we are failing.

* Chris Bakkes has been involved in conservation and ecotourism, mostly in Namibia's north-western areas, for more than two decades. He is an acclaimed author of eight books published in Afrikaans, with a selection of his work translated into English and published under the title 'Bushveld, Desert, and Dogs: a Game Ranger's Life' (Human & Rousseau) in 2012.

Rhino horn trade conference “tells it like it is”

Posted on 11 April, 2014 by Africa Geographic Editorial
Re-posted from http://africageographic.com/blog/rhino-horn-trade-conference-tells-it-like-it-is/

© Nandi van Tonder

The controversial OSCAP conference, entitled ‘Risk Assessment of Rhino Horn Trade’ ended yesterday on a positive note. The participants agreed to work together to ensure that all South Africans were made aware of the risks associated with legalising rhino horn trade.

“No matter what side of the trade debate we’re on, what we all want is for the poaching to stop”, said Allison Thomson, Director of OSCAP. “We’ll have to agree to disagree on the trade issue, but make no mistake, we’re serious about working hard, both domestically and internationally, to put a stop to any proposals to legalise rhino horn trade.”

“We need to learn lessons from the ivory trade debacle” said Mary Rice of the Environmental Investigation Agency. “You don’t legalise a high-value product like ivory and put it in the hands of hundreds of millions of people and then wonder why elephant poaching has gone off the charts. The same is true for rhino horn”.

Susie Watts, speaking for Humane Society International, pointed out to delegates that South Africa’s plan to sell its rhino horn at a low price in order to undercut the illegal market would backfire. “The very people who are currently orchestrating the poaching of your rhinos will be the eventual beneficiaries of this plan”, she said, warning that the horn traders would buy the horn cheaply from South Africa and then sell it at an inflated price to consumers.

Peter Knights of WildAid showed delegates a number of PSAs featuring celebrities such as Yao Ming and Jackie Chan. WildAid’s video messages have been seen by hundreds of millions of Chinese people and have resulted in a steep decline in the shark fin trade. “We’re now working to do the same for rhinos and elephants”, said Knights. WildAid’s new PSA on rhinos is now being shown widely in Vietnam.

Will Travers of the Born Free Foundation said “”We must end speculation about a future legal trade in rhino horn. The South African government should take all such thoughts off the table so that we can focus on working together towards the long-term conservation of rhinos”.

Alex Kennaugh of the Natural Resources Defense Council said “South Africa wants to get into the rhino horn racket. Not only will they have to compete against global organised crime syndicates, but a legal trade will also make the cost of doing business cheaper for the criminals, make rangers’ jobs harder, make law enforcement harder, and it’s not going to make a dent in demand. In fact, a legal trade might even stimulate demand which just means more dead rhinos”.

Dex Kotze, MC of the conference, said “The consumer problem we are facing is astronomical. By 2020, 840 million Chinese people will be urbanised, with the “affluent” stratum of the middle class numbering 280 million within ten years. In addition, there will be 15 000 high net worth individuals in China alone. Even by the most conservative estimates, legal rhino horn trade could not come close to satisfying the level of demand that could result”.

Duong Viet Hong, representing the Wildlife Conservation Society in Vietnam, reported that The Vietnam Government had shown strong commitment to fight rhino crime in the last 12 months, but that there were not sufficient controls in place in Vietnam to deal with legal rhino horn trade. She also warned of the dangers of sending mixed messages. “Vietnamese consumers, particularly the youth, are starting to get the message about rhinos. Now is not the time to confuse them by selling rhino horn on the legal market”.

International rhino conference gears up for a tough debate

Posted on 4 April, 2014 by Africa Geographic Editorial in Events
Re-posted from http://africageographic.com/blog/international-rhino-conference-gears-up-for-a-tough-debate/

An international rhino conference taking place in Pretoria next month has attracted a list of high-profile speakers from across the world to debate its headline issue: “Assessing the risks of rhino horn trade”. Organised by South African NGO Outraged SA Citizens Against Poaching (OSCAP), the conference takes place at Onderstepoort on the outskirts of Pretoria from April 8-9 and is being attended by NGOs and conservation associations, diplomats and concerned local and international stakeholders and private individuals.

“The aim of the conference is to openly debate the risks associated with the government’s proposal to legalise trade in rhino horn, which it will be tabling before the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) at its 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17) to be held in Durban in 2016,” says Allison Thomson, director of OSCAP.

“In this respect we have lined up a good cross-section of internationally acclaimed experts and conservation specialists to address and interact with delegates in an effort to incite lively debate,” she adds.

Key speakers include Mary Rice, executive director of the London-based Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA). Rice will be addressing the conference on the lessons the EIA has learned from the ivory trade and its in-depth undercover work in China and how these can be adapted to assist in the rhino poaching situation.

Rice is joined by international conservationist and wildlife trade investigator Suzy Watts, a consultant for the US’s Humane Society International, who will explore what she calls the flawed assumptions underlying the call for a legalised trade in rhino horn.

Will Travers OBE is no stranger to anyone with an interest in saving wildlife. Son of celebrated actors Bill Travers and Virginia McKenna, he fell in love with Africa while living in Kenya as a child when his parents were making the movie “Born Free”. In 1984 he co-founded the Born Free Foundation and has been working tirelessly ever since to raise awareness of conservation issues the world over. Travers’s speech at the OSCAP conference will take a look at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and examine South Africa’s proposal to legalise rhino horn trade.

International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) regional director for southern Africa, Jason Bell, is also well known in conservation circles and will be examining the “horn of contention” that legal trade proposals are impaled upon.

Rice, Watts, Travers and Bell will also be participating in an open panel debate following their talks on the opening day of the conference.“South Africa also has valuable lessons to learn from other African nations and their experiences in protecting their wildlife,” says Thomson. “Kenya, for example, has been battling an ongoing war against the ravages of poaching and the illegal wildlife trade for decades and will be well represented at the conference as a result.”

Dr Paula Kahumbu, of the Nairobi-based NGO Wildlife Direct and Dr Ben Okita-Ouma, rhino co-coordinator for the Kenyan Wildlife Service, are each well-versed in the pitfalls and politics involved in conservation efforts. Both will be sharing their views on how to protect wildlife without trade and the unintended consequences a legal trade in rhino horn would have on range states. Marcia Fargnoli, of Namibia’s Earth Org will also be looking at the knock-on effect a legalised trade would have on Namibia. Meanwhile, renowned environmental journalist and safari guide, Ian Michler, asks the leading question of whether there is a third option available to help solve the rhino poaching problem in his presentation, and Professor Melville Saymaan of North West University is going to unpack the myth of “if it pays, it stays” and shed some light on the issue of sustainability.

“We have tried to present every aspect of the various issues involved in the current rhino situation in the interests of dissemination and debate,” says Thomson. “It’s going to be an interesting and intense couple of days!” she adds.