I would like to express
my dismay and strong condemnation of the
ongoing scourge of rhino poaching in our
country, which has seen the staggering number
of 448 rhinos illegally killed in South
Africa in 2011.
This ongoing poaching
of our rhino population is a source for
great concern to government and the various
stakeholders. It requires of us all as a
collective to take drastic measures to help
combat it.
I would like to assure
you that the government of South Africa
views the illegal killing of this national
treasure in a very serious light and will
continue to prioritise our fight against
this crime jointly with our law enforcement
agencies. We will continue to implement
the various initiatives highlighted last
year, while putting in place added measures
to address this matter.
We have established
the National Biodiversity Investigators
Forum specifically for multi-departmental
co-operation and information sharing with
various law enforcements. In addition to
the Investigators Forum we have also established
the interim National Wildlife Reaction Unit
(NWCRU) that we would like to establish
as a permanent unit. We have also seen the
return of the South African National Defence
Force (SANDF) to monitor the 350km of national
border in Kruger National Park and other
country borders.
Most of our rhino population is in the Kruger
National Park which has faced an onslaught
from poachers. We will deploy additional
150 Rangers to Kruger National Park this
year, to add to the current 500, to address
this crime.
As additional measure,
the department will implement a decision
to deploy conservation specialists at key
designated ports of entry and exit through
which the international trade in endangered
species (mainly CITES listed) can be exported
and imported. The designations of the ports
should also be extended to include all wildlife
species imported and exported to and from
South Africa under the National Environmental
Management Act: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA).
This will include all
indigenous species and those species listed
as alien and those that are invasive. Such
measures will facilitate effective regulatory
enforcement by enabling wildlife and customs
officers to conduct inspections and associated
endorsement mechanisms in compliance with
international obligations under CITES and
with the NEMBA.
The Department of Environmental
Affairs is also working towards ensuring
that at least two facilities (one at a sea
port and one at OR Tambo) are secured where
wildlife officials at ports of entry and
exit can inspect and examine wildlife consignments.
Operation Rhino still
remains a standing agenda item of the National
Joints Committee (Nat Joints Com), which
comprises of senior members of SAPS, NPA
and the South African National Defence Force.
This committee is responsible for coordination,
joint planning and implementation of high
priority security measures. As a result
of this cooperation, 232 people were arrested
in 2011 alone for rhino poaching and related
activities.
Our efforts at the international
level have been intensified. We have to
date formally and on numerous occasions
engaged our counterparts in the Peoples
Republic of China and the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam. We managed within this short
space of time to prepare the draft Memorandums
of Understanding (MOUs)s on wildlife trafficking
and enforcement which we hope to sign during
the first half of this year - 2012. Both
these countries have pledged their commitment
to partner with us in addressing this scourge.
With regards to the
Bilateral on Safety and Security between
South Africa and Mozambique, at officials’
level a discussion on cross-border law enforcement
took place. We will escalate this to the
level of Ministers. We will cooperate with
SAPS in finalizing a strategy on cross-border
law enforcement involving wildlife issues.
The Department has also
played an active role and contributed to
international meetings and forums including
INTERPOL Wildlife Crime meetings, Rhinoceros
Task Force of CITES, regional Rhino and
Elephant Security Group and Rhino Management
Group.
You may be aware that
in mid-November last year the People’s Republic
of China seized 33 rhino horns, 758 ivory
chopsticks and 127 ivory bracelets worth
R18, 17 million in Hong Kong. We are currently
finalising the due process in collaboration
with the judiciary in Hong Kong that will
allow us to take samples of the DNA. That
will enable the determination of the actual
origin of the seized rhino horns and contribute
to evidence in court proceedings which will
ensue.
On the 30 September
2011, I published for public comment, the
proposed amendments to the norms and standards
for the marking of rhinoceros horn and hunting
of white rhinoceros for trophy hunting.
Interested and affected parties were given
30 days to submit their comments or inputs.
My Department evaluated
the comments that were received during the
comment period and dully effected amendments
that will be scrutinised by the relevant
cooperative governance structures. Once
the consultative process is finalised, I
will consider and publish the final amendments
for implementation.
These proposed amendments
will strengthen provisions relating to marking
of horns and or live rhino specimens, the
supervision of hunts, the transport of the
horn subsequent to the hunt, reporting and
monitoring, verification of hunters, and
the provisions relating to the taking of
samples for DNA profiling.
The Dehorning impact
study which was completed did assist in
determining whether Dehorning is a viable
intervention to address the risks relating
to poaching.
The study indentified
the need to urgently conduct further research,
with cooperation of private rhino owners,
to gain empirical data on the efficacy of
rhino dehorning as a means of reducing poaching
threat, and on potential impacts on social
behaviour and reproductive output.
Similarly, research
is required to better understand poacher
behaviour and the drivers thereof to identify
the extent to which dehorning is likely
to act as a meaningful deterrent.
Some of the key findings
of the study include the following:
•The decision of whether to dehorn a rhino
population or not depends on a number of
factors, including the level of the poaching
threat, the level of security in place,
the availability of funds and the size,
location and distribution of the rhino population
in question.
•Due to the invasive nature of, and expense
associated with dehorning, the intervention
should only be considered under conditions
of relatively severe poaching threat.
•Dehorning should only be considered where
a baseline level of security is in place,
otherwise rhinos are highly likely to be
poached, regardless of their horn status.
•Where there is no realistic expectation
of implementing adequate security in a reasonable
time frame to protect vulnerable populations,
translocating rhinos to more secure locations
is preferable to dehorning.
•If dehorning is to be undertaken, an attempt
should be made to dehorn the entire adult
population in small populations, although
the practicality of total dehorning will
depend on various factors including terrain,
habitat and rhino density.
•All dehorning should be done in as short
a time as possible to minimize potential
behavioural impacts associated with having
some individual rhinos horned and others
without horns, although such impacts are
not necessarily significant.
•In larger reserves/populations, dehorning
can be practiced strategically to reduce
the vulnerability of highly visible individual
rhinos along boundaries, fence lines and
roads.
•The ideal frequency of re-dehorning will
depend on the level of threat: under conditions
of severe threat, rhinos should be re-dehorned
every 12-24 months, under conditions of
intermediate threat 24-36 months should
suffice
•Dehorning is likely to be most effective
if practiced by all, or a significant proportion
of the rhino owners / reserves in a given
area.
•All dehorning should be accompanied by
drives to ensure that poachers are well
aware that the reserve in question is ‘horn-free’,
to prevent a lag effect whereby poachers
continue to target the area in the belief
that the rhinos there are horned.
•Where sufficient funds are available for
top quality security, dehorning may not
be necessary.
In essence, ladies and
gentlemen, the dehorning impact study reveals
that dehorning cannot be considered as the
only security intervention. The decisions
to dehorn a rhino population or not will
therefore depend on a number of factors,
including:
•the level of the poaching threat
•the level of security in place
•the availability of funds and
•the size, location and distribution of
the rhino population in question.
The feasibility study
to determine the viability of legalising
trade in rhino horn within South Africa
that relates to the national moratorium
currently in place, has been initiated and
it is anticipated that the study will be
concluded by August 2012.
The following issues
will be addressed in that study:
•Trends in local (national) trade in rhino
horn prior to the February 2009 moratorium.
•Trends in the incidences of poaching and
trophy hunting of rhinos prior to- and subsequent
to the national moratorium, and relative
to changes in laws pertaining to trophy
hunting.
•The scale and scope of the potential market
for rhino horn in South Arica.
•The implications of lifting the national
moratorium on rhino trade in South Africa,
including risks.
The Global market research
study relating to rhino horn was advertised.
Unfortunately, a suitable service provider
was not found and the department will consider
alternatives to ensure that the study is
initiated as soon as possible.
The main aim of the
study is to investigate the current markets
(illegal markets) and to determine the drivers
and trends associated with these markets.
The information will assist in focusing
interventions in terms of enforcement in
“consumer” states and will identify the
areas requiring further cooperation and
collaboration between South Africa and these
countries.
With regard to the proposed
moratorium on hunting, I have consulted
with my provincial colleagues regarding
the matter and decided not to effect a blanket
moratorium at this moment. We have however
agreed that I should reserve the right to
implement any such or associated measures
in targeted areas, environments and or provinces
where such will be necessary. My department
will pursue a halt to the issuance of hunting
permits to hunters coming from countries
that do not have appropriate legislation
to monitor whether the trophy is used for
the purpose as reflected on the permits.
It is clear that we
need to continue working with all stakeholders
and our entire South African society, if
this war on rhino poaching is to be won.
It is clear that this is an organised crime.
And in dealing with organised criminals
we need inputs and action from all South
Africans including yourselves as members
of the media. South Africans are also urged
to report any illegal rhino activities that
they are aware of to 0800 205 005.
I thank you!
+ More
CONCERNS OVER SEVERE
WEATHER OR AIR POLLUTION-RELATED WARNING
PROVISIONS OF THE CURRENT SOUTH AFRICAN
WEATHER SERVICE AMENDMENT BILL
In May 2011, the Minister
of Water and Environmental Affairs published
the South African Weather Service Amendment
Bill for public comment. Having taken into
account the few public comments, a revised
Bill was introduced in the National Assembly
of Parliament and an explanatory summary
of the Bill was published at the end of
September last year.
Although the formal
public comment period on the initial draft
Bill closed some time ago, the Bill is now
being considered by Parliament and Parliament
is planning to hold public hearings in the
next few weeks.
Over the last two weeks,
the amendments to the South African Weather
Service (SAWS) Act proposed in the SAWS
Amendment Bill appear to have become the
subject of concern.
In particular, the concerns
appear to relate specifically to a proposed
provision that prohibits the issue of “…a
severe weather or air pollution-related
warning without the necessary written permission
from the Weather Service” and especially
the possible penalty of up to R10 million
or 10 years imprisonment for persons found
guilty of contravening this provision.
These provisions are
sincere attempts to ensure that all South
Africans are protected against false, misleading
and/or hoax warnings that can result, and
have resulted, in undue public panic, related
stress and injury, evacuations and/or the
mobilisation of emergency services and subsequent
fruitless and wasteful expenditure.
Furthermore, since its
establishment, the South African Weather
Services has always been the only official
provider of “…severe weather-related warnings
for South Africa in order to ensure that
there is a single authoritative voice in
this regard”. Indeed, it is only the proposal
to make this 11 year old provision enforceable
that is now causing concern.
In other words, although
it has effectively been illegal for anyone
other than SAWS to issue severe weather-related
warnings for South Africa since 2001, it
is only now that there are possible criminal
consequences for illegal warnings that are
being proposed, that concerns are being
raised.
To further put these
provisions into our current context – one
of the accepted impacts of climate change
is the possible increase in the frequency,
intensity and range of extreme weather events.
In order to ensure that we build our resilience
to these impacts, we must ensure that our
warning systems are efficient, effective
and, most importantly, credible.
With the real possibility
of increasing extreme weather events, the
potential for false, misleading and/or hoax
warnings significantly undermining public
confidence in, and/or appropriate public
reaction to, warnings is of real concern.
However, it is also
clear from various comments that these proposed
provisions are perceived in some quarters
as going way beyond its intention as indicated
above. It is suggested by commentators that
the proposed amendment may actually limit
access to weather and air pollution-related
information that is in the interest of the
general public’s health, safety and well-being.
As Parliament has now
called for another round of public comment
by 12 January 2012, it is highly likely,
given these recent concerns around the Bill,
that Parliament will request the department
to review the perceived problem provisions.
Naturally the department will then take
a very close look at these concerns and
will revert to Parliament with its findings
and recommendations.
One of the important
lessons from this is that active public
participation is fundamental to good law-making
and, if indeed the Bill’s honest attempts
to protect South Africans from the potential
harmful impacts of false, misleading and/or
hoax warnings turn out to have unintended
negative consequences that can be addressed
in the final amendment, then it will be
the public who must be thanked for their
interest and involvement. Members of the
public are accordingly urged to not only
criticise the current draft, but to possibly
propose alternative wording to ensure that
the intention as indicated above is achieved.
Text: Søren Tobberup Hansen
