Anti-poaching measures in Kruger National Park

Meeting report

(Please note: as the connection to the Kruger National Park (KNP) was not very good, with the presence of a lot of feedback between those on location and those who were meeting virtually, PMG was unable to capture the entirety of the discussion, as some comments were inaudible.)

Opening remarks

The Chairperson said that after the Committee received a briefing from South African National Parks on poaching and the other matters listed on the programme, it would be going on an oversight visit to the residences which were not far from where it was presently meeting in the KNP. There were some Members who did not understand why the Committee had come on an oversight visit when it could communicate virtually, but he had initiated the request to have an oversight visit to the KNP, and this had been conditionally approved on the basis that on Thursday, from 10h00, it would set aside time for the Parliamentary programme.

He said the chairperson of the SANParks board would be leaving the virtual session to attend a climate change meeting, and this had been agreed on. He himself, as Chairperson, was also meant to join the session which she was leaving to attend, but negotiations were still taking place to see if an official could deputise for him.

Ms Joanne Yawitch, Chairperson of the SANParks board, said she understood that the day before the Committee had had a look at the work that SANParks did in relation to law enforcement and its anti-poaching operations. Today, it was going to try to locate this work within a broader context and within its broader strategy.

She had two things to say from the perspective of the board. Firstly, SANParks had had to spend more and more of its resources in order to address the issues related to anti-poaching over the last decade or so. It was a matter of deep regret to the organisation that its staff, who should be doing conservation management, were having to do law enforcement and in doing so were placing their lives at risk and were putting themselves in positions of considerable danger and suffering. The necessity for this to be done was understood, but she thought that the toll of this action on rangers and staff needed to be considered.

Secondly, when it catches poachers, SANParks generally found young men from poor communities on the boundaries of the park who engaged in poaching as a means to earn a living, despite the risks and the dangers involved. Unless this poverty and the deprivation that existed outside of the park was addressed, SANPark's ability to stop poaching and crack the syndicates that were at the top of the chain was going to be very limited.

She thought that the socio-economic context that SANParks operated in, and the responsibilities involved, meant that both it and government had to look at the conditions of living, employment opportunities and service delivery issues in the communities outside of the park. What would be addressed today was how it would address this issue.

SANParks' strategic overview to maintain the KNP's integrity

Rhino poaching

Mr Fundisile Mketeni, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), SANParks, began by referring to the challenge of rhino poaching.

Once there was an asset, there was a problem, because there were people who wanted rhino horn. South Africa’s asset was the rhino, but people wanted its horn and to get it they had to kill it. These poachers did not eat the rhino -- they only wanted the horn. This demand was not normal business-driven demand, but was underground demand driven by syndicates and their greed. The people living in these areas were very poor. Syndicates then recruited young people from Mozambique and South Africa on the western boundary of the KNP to become sharp-shooters.

SANParks was not excited about arresting young people. It understood that these young people were often the brothers, cousins and uncles of rangers. It was dealing with organised crime, and this was a complex process. To enter its parks, one was given a permit. When people were in the park at night, SANParks had no choice but to arrest people. In the African bush, things happened at night, which was why the Committee had seen in the demonstration yesterday that it had militarised its rangers in order to protect them. At times, it was criticised for doing this, as rangers were not soldiers. However, they were in the bush, and they were thoroughly trained so that they could deal with crime and protect the park's assets.

If SANParks happened to lose a ranger, it had to be able to face the family and children and say that their father, brother or uncle had been ready. Rangers joined conservation for the love of nature, and not to work as soldiers. Unfortunately, it was a phenomenon in Africa that rangers were being lost across the continent because of the work of syndicates who demanded Africa's heritage. SANParks had a duty to protect this heritage.

He said that SANParks did organise covert operations with some of its staff who worked with the Hawks beyond South Africa's borders, as they knew best how to deal with these issues and how to track the horns. This process was a complex one, which was why it needed the whole security cluster. He wished that the Committee would one day bring the cluster to come and listen to this presentation, because SANParks did not want to be on its own. Some information it could not share easily due to the covert operations. Whatever it did, it wanted to ensure that its information was safe.

Mr Mbongeni Tukela, Regional Manager and Acting Head Ranger, KNP, said the rhino was an environmental asset that would not disappear on SANParks' watch. Ensuring that the rhino would live into the next millennia, however, had serious resource implications for the organisation.

He commented that some people considered rhino horn as more valuable than platinum, but for SANParks, the asset was the whole rhino. Demand came mainly from China, Vietnam, Laos and Yemen. Yemini boys received a coming-of-age knife from their parents at the age of 12, and a hilt of rhino horn was seen as a status symbol. He described  a number of rhino horn uses (See presentation slides 8-10).

The primary challenge faced by SANParks in protecting the rhinos was the need for resources. The challenges was that the KNP covered two million hectares. This was greater than the surface area of several countries combined. There was a 60 km border to keep animals from crossing into Zimbabwe.

He said SANParks’ operational plan had three elements -- protective, reactive and proactive.

Protective

This included pickets, gates and matters of access control; patrols on foot, bicycles, motor-cycles and even light aircraft.

Reactive

This involved it being persistent and unpredictable. It needed actionable tactical intelligence, which was why it had alliances and why it had collaborated with the police and the military. whose components dealt with intelligence. Along with its attempts at enhancing its mobility, these were its force multipliers. To improve ranger mobility, it had helicopters, fixed-wing and lighter mobile vehicles. It had also developed capacity for its special rangers. As alluded to in its short presentation yesterday on the equipment it was using, it wanted to ensure that every person it deployed had the capacity to be able to project themselves with confidence in dealing with the challenges they faced. It was also trying to own the night, primarily through technology such as sensors and Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) radar systems, which could operate around the clock, both day and night -- and preferably at night, as it allowed for better differentiation between human and beast.

Proactive

It aimed to be proactive by protecting the park from the outside, and not from within. It needed to gain alliances around it in order to deal with the issues before the poachers got into the KNP. Getting neighbouring establishments like game reserves involved would alleviate some of its problems. It also needed to enhance and develop its human and technical intelligence.

He said the Lowveld Lembombo Environmental Asset Protection Alliance aimed to protect all sought-after assets, including lions and other poached animals. The South African National Defence Force (SANDF) and the South African Police (SAPS) formed part of the Mission Point Operation Centre established in 2011. It played a pivotal role in linking up all the stakeholders.

After listing the successes (see slide 15), he said that importantly, the KNP had achieved all of its first year objectives in its three-year plan, and had increased its capabilities.

The risks going forward were:

1. Ranger convictions

2. Rangers shot down

3. Corruption in the sector

4. Tourist interference

5. Mass Mozambican incursions

6. Horn stockpile (collected by SANPARKS since the 1960s) might be attacked by someone clever.

7. Poisoning of animals

Mr Tukela outlined the strategic options available to SANParks:

Force: SANParks had tried by all means to involve all stakeholders. The police needed to ensure that prosecution happened. However, its main need was intelligence as it could not go far without it.

Enforcement: He both suggested and asked why there could not be environmental courts dealing with matters decisively, in the efficient way it was done during the World Cup, where matters were dealt with within a week rather than seven years.

Fortify: Intensified protection zone (displayed on slide 20) which was the zone protecting the last quarter of the rhino population on the planet.

Out-class: Criminals needed to be out-classed. Technological solutions were needed, but this cost money. The technology was there, but SANParks needed access to it.

Propagate: Social media needed to be used more proactively, and propaganda needed to be used to its benefit so that people wanted to protect rhinos for the world -- something which went beyond SANPaks' or South Africa's interest.

Mitigate: It had the options to remove, relocate, trade and treat rhino horn. He thought it might be above his pay grade to suggest that there might be a need to look at the trade element again.

Community: Involving and educating communities was the only long-term solution. Education of the youth was key, as these were the people who would carry SANParks' work into the next millennium. They would buy into the message on the need to protect the assets and would return with this message to their parents at home. There were a number of projects it had undertaken with communities, including libraries and some green projects, and there were some laboratories that were adjacent to the park. It knew, however, that this was not enough and that it could do better.

Mr Tukela said incidents tended to increase over weekends because people thought that SANParks' rangers did not work on weekends, and word had got out that budgets had been cut and that it could not afford to pay for overtime. They initially thought that incidents were more prevalent at full moon, but it appeared that poachers were consistent, regardless of moon phase.

He displayed a heat map which depicted where most of the animals were sitting, and where most of the rhinos were. It also indicated the rhino carcasses for the month of April alone in the KNP. Most of the infrastructure, including the roads and gates, were in the southern part of the park, so there were thus more tourists coming to the southern part of the park. The roads were there to enhance tourists' access to the park, but this had served another purpose and had made SANParks' job very difficult in managing the problem of poaching.

New security plan

Mr Mketeni said that SANParks had just finalised a new security plan for rhinos. What had been presented was what it was currently doing as part of its game plan. The plan it was putting in place would be discussed with Parliament at some point, but SANParks would like it to succeed. It also wanted to add that if it were to say that it was losing the battle, saving the last 500 remaining rhinos, it might want to come to Parliament to ask for a Presidential decree which would call for a no-fly zone and no access for a 200km radius around the place where the last rhinos remained. If it reached this point, it might use this language, whether in the KNP or somewhere that the animals would be safe.

There were soft issues, some of which had been addressed. There were offenders for rhino poaching who were in jail. SANParks had spoken to the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services to ask if it could have a programme, where these offenders would be taken to go an feed orphans. This was a soft issue, as these poachers tended to become repeat offenders. Therefore, as part of their rehabilitation, they must experience the pain involved in seeing the orphans. There needed to be an emotional element that got into the minds of the offenders. They were young people from poor communities.

Lastly, he asked if rangers were protected enough by legislation, and whether there was a need for special legislation to protect them in the event that at night, a ranger might find himself in a situation leading to the fatality of a poacher. He asked if rangers were protected enough in this regard, as one had to avoid the possibility of rangers going to jail because the legislation did not protect them 100%.

Discussion

Ms A Weber (DA) said a few weeks ago the de-horning of 300 rhinos had started in the KNP. She asked how many had already been de-horned. How protected were de-horned rhinos, as poachers came back for the horn remaining under the skin? She knew that this sounded horrible, but this was what poachers did. She asked what could be done to improve communication between the provinces about offenders so that it was known that they were not first time offenders in a different province. She felt that there should be communication of a list of these offenders so that when they were subsequently caught, they could go to jail. She also wanted to know if there were any soldiers from other countries that were working inside the KNP as rangers.

Mr N Paulsen (EFF) asked what the initiatives of the neighbouring countries were in collaboration with South Africa, and how these were co-ordinated. How often was surveillance done with drones, as they were cheaper than helicopters? He knew there was a drone pilot in the park, and wanted to know if drones were used.

Ms C Phillips (DA) asked what the one most important thing SANParks would like parliamentarians to  to drive when the Committee returned to Parliament.

Mr D Bryant (DA) commented that corruption had been identified as one of its highest risks, and asked if it could give it more information on how polygraph testing works around this issue. He asked if the SANPARKS could explain the difference between the different kinds of rangers. Yesterday it had been mentioned that there was a need for about 300 environmental monitors, but that there were only about 70 in place. He thought that it was possible to use e-funding to increase the number of monitors. He also raised issues related to courts dedicated to dealing with poaching cases, and the ranger rotation policy being discussed -- how it worked and whether it was succeeding.

SANParks' responses

Provincial movement of offenders

Mr Mketeni reponded on the question of movement of offenders. Since SANParks also did intelligence work, it tracked offenders across provinces because poachers moved around. He confirmed that it had a system of its own to track them. It was able to answer to the tracking of repeat offenders across provincial borders when presenting a case.

Mr Tukela said he could speak about whether or not SANParks had soldiers from other countries in the KNP.

Much had been said about the use of drones, but he could add more. They needed a very strong camera that could tell between an animal and a person, a shadow or a tree and this was tricky, particularly at night in the bush. They had been used extensively in the park. SANParks had used a very large drone called the Seeker for six months at great expense, but it had succeeded in identifying only two hits during the six months. Drones had their own space and time, in terms of operations. Drones had limitations in the KNP for a number of reasons -- the limited hours they could fly, interpretation of the images and making the correct deductions proved a challenge, as well as how far they could fly and still relay information back to the person interpreting the data. One could not simply send a drone out to fly and think that when it returned the information could be downloaded, because by then the information was historical. If it had a drone that had the right payload, the right endurance and there were people monitoring it around the clock, then it might be successful, but the African bush was not very kind to drones.

Referring to corruption and polygraphing, he said that when polygraphing started, there had been resistance. As a result, everyone, including the CEO, had to undergo polygraph testing. If the results told a story, there were questions as to whether employees could be fired. SANParks wanted to change its employment contracts to include that should a polygraph test suggest corruption, employees should not return to work. It could not do this until it engagesd with the trade unions.

The issue of the same person being arrested in different provinces was being dealt with through the mission point operation centre. Because of prisons being full, these cases had been postponed a number of times.

(At this stage, connectivity problems rendered the responses inaudible).

The meeting was adjourned.