Stephen Fry and Mark Carwardine visit Big Game Parks, Swaziland.

From Left to Right: Dr. Hamish Currie, Stephen Fry and Mark Carwardine with BBC Crew

These two presenters for the BBC’s “Last Chance to See” accompanied Dr. Hamish Currie of Back to Africa to get an update on the Roan Antelope Project at Reilly’s Rock, Mlilwane Wildlife Sanctuary.

Swaziland’s Big Game Parks are run with both wildlife and people in mind and to host this intrepid team was an honour.

Tim Green and Ros Sewell, the show’s producers kept a tight schedule and needed content to support the Project. They were fortunately able to capture routine procedures on 3 Roans.

Piping.

Roan Antelope bulls are very aggressive, so protecting the females from their sharp horns is imperative. Owing to a confined location, clashes sometimes happen between the bulls and cows, and we cannot afford a single injury. For this reason 2 options were exercised to protect the valuable game.

The first is “Piping”. 2 inch, black irrigation piping is cut and heated for fitting. This crude, but effective option looks ungainly and also requires the animal to be anaesthetized.  

 Pressurizing the gun and the dart.

Mick Reilly (l),Dr.  Hamish Currie (r)

 The pipes are heated before fitting.

Ros Sewell (l) capturing Ted Reilly (far right) heating the pipes for fitting

 Stephen Fry and Mark Carwardine discuss the procedure, while Tim Green directs proceedings.

Two Roan Antelope were successfully fitted with piping.

The second option of protection is relocation and piping.

This option was carried out at Mkhaya Game Reserve. A young bull was identified after skirmishes with the dominant bull proved more and more damaging. This bull was to be darted, relocated to Reilly’s Rock and then at a later stage, fitted with piping. Additionally, the introduction of new genes into the Reilly’s group, further enhances the survival chances of the species.

Stephen chatting to Mark, while cameraman Mark looks on.

From left to right: Mick Reilly, Ted Reilly, Stephen Fry, Mark Carwardine and Dr. Hamish Currie

At Big Game Parks we constantly strive to provide a secure future for Swaziland’s historically beleaguered wildlife. We do this through the careful management of all aspects of the complex eco-systems that support our wealth of flora and fauna and through sustainable ecotourism  - which allows visitors to enjoy at first hand the bio-diversity of Swaziland as well as providing the economic base for conserving the Kingdom’s rich natural heritage.

Back to Africa has been key in the successful breeding of Roan Antelope. Visit www.backtoafrica.co.za to learn more about their projects. A notable one is their relocation of possibly the most endangered animal in the world, the Northern White Rhino. Last Chance to See’s team caught up with Hamish and this project in Kenya.

View Stephen Fry’s endorsement of Back to Africa. This clip is courtesy of Lucie and Lachlan from Vagabond Adventures. http://thevagabondadventures.com/

POACHERS, RANGERS, the GAME ACT, and the REALITIES OF POACHING

Put your hand in the fire and you WILL be burnt!  This is the simple principle behind the Game Amendment Act which came about in response to a desperate crises which exposed Swaziland’s rhino, and much of its other wildlife, to local extinction for the second time.  This was not merely a local problem – it was a continental problem.  The iconic African Black rhino was declared critically endangered after being reduced by 98% across its range in Africa to a mere 2000 animals worldwide.  The amendments to the Swaziland Game Act were therefore composed as preventative rather than remedial legislation on the basis that it is surely preferable to have live rhinos than dead rhinos and poachers in jail!  Preventative legislation means just that!  With harsh sentences, people are less likely to break the law, and to substantiate this reality, Swaziland has not lost a single rhino to poaching since 1992 – a full 18 years, while Africa all around is losing rhinos at alarming rates; yet the Game Act is described as Draconian because its amendments of 1991 introduce harsh penalties. 

Thuli Brilliance Makama of the NGO Yonge Nawe has resorted to blatant and shameful lies to suit her own money making agenda and has become an environmental hero and won herself a million Emalangeni in the process.  By mischievously fabricating her own versions of BGP and Police law enforcement operations against hardened criminals, Makama portrays these as being human rights atrocities against impoverished, innocent members of communities trying desperately to survive from day to day – as hunter gatherers no less!

The Game Act is also falsely told by Makama and by Musa Hlope of SCCCO, to have been decreed and then backdated to give immunity to rangers for the “killing of innocent, unarmed Swazi citizens” at Big Bend in April 1992.  This is a mischievous lie that is being told by both Makama and by Hlope, neither of whom were anywhere near the scene of crime at the time.  The truth is that the two people who were shot at Big Bend were hardened, armed criminals caught red-handed with illegal weapons, in the act of trafficking rhino horn chopped from the faces of butchered rhinos.  The event took place in April 1992 when these 2 criminals drew guns to resist arrest.  Those who did not draw guns were arrested by game rangers and handed to the police for prosecution.  The guns recovered in this operation had been stolen in an armed robbery shortly before.

The Game Amendment Act was fully debated and passed by Parliament in January 1991 in response to a rhino holocaust which eliminated almost 80% of Swaziland’s rhinos in the 4 year period between 1988-1992.  The Game Act was not backdated and it was not decreed as claimed.  This is another lie by Hlope and Makama, which impacts very negatively on Swaziland and its leadership.  It also seriously questions the credibility of Hlope whose lies are freely given space in the media.  Thuli Brilliance Makama (straying from the purpose for which the NGO Yonge Nawe was created) has now concocted a human rights abuse issue out of this and gone international on it, bringing Swaziland into disrepute and in the process she has been enriched with E1100000, which she says belongs personally to her and NOT to Yonge Nawe.  How proper is this, when the costs of her actions are met by the NGO which sustains her?!  The action was conducted in the name of Yonge Nawe, in Yonge Nawe’s time, and was entirely financed by international donor money donated to Yonge Nawe.

It is also noteworthy that Makama’s campaign against BGP was triggered with a study commissioned to assess parks and human conflicts.  The study focussed on creating false perceptions on the integrity of BGP and the private sector in nature conservation.  At first the motive for this assault was obscure because Yonge Nawe was considered an ally in conservation.  But then it was discovered that Douglas Consulting had been awarded the contract and that this commercial company actually belonged to Thuli Makama.  The Articles of Association of Douglas Consulting empower the company to prospect and mine for minerals, to quarry, crush, smelt, and prepare for market, gold, base metals and minerals of every kind, precious stones, deal in bullion, drill and excavate, etc, etc, so it is to do with commercial and industrial issues more than it is with environmental issues.  Furthermore, Makama’s husband was appointed to conduct the study, which cost in excess of E150 000!  One of its recommendations was that the King’s Office be dispossessed of the responsibility for the Game Act and CITES and for these to be returned to the Ministry of Tourism where the Swaziland National Trust Commission would automatically control them.  Within weeks of this recommendation, Makama’s husband was appointed as the Director of SNTC Parks.  This is significant because whoever controls the Game Act and CITES enjoys lavish opportunities of international travel at public expense, attending workshops and seminars all over the world and being rewarded with large Dollar allowances and then returning home to be paid their salaries as well.  (BGP is an exception because, being financially self sustaining, it does not qualify for funding with public money and therefore has to be extremely prudent on expenditure and in its choice of which workshops it can attend.)  The Yonge Nawe example of international travel abroad (see table below), is taken from its 2004 annual report.

DATE                           ATTENDEE                    COUNTRY/CITY             COST?

The Yonge Nawe report shows a NIL attendance by Thuli Makama at local workshops held in Swaziland.

In the BBC World interview on HardTalk, (April 21, 2010) Thuli Brilliance Makama made repeated reference to Zimbabwe as the example Swaziland should follow, when dealing with poachers.  She claims that in Zimbabwe no poachers are shot and that poaching is under control.

The truth is different.  In Zimbabwe, ten poachers and two guards have been shot and killed in the last 12 months, and poaching is very definitely a massive problem just as it is in all States which protect wildlife.  That is the reality.  So Zimbabwe as an example,  does not support Makama’s claim that Swaziland is the only country that “shoots poachers”, or that “sweet talk” with the poaching element of communities is the solution.  Her assertion is utter rubbish!  Indeed, Zimbabwe’s application to CITES for a once-off exemption from the ivory trade ban failed because trafficking and poaching are out of control!  Zimbabwe is no different to any other African range state in terms of poaching pressures and how poaching is handled.  Nor indeed, are South Africa, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia – all the countries quoted by Makama, and all of which have similar poaching pressures.  All of these have had their share of human mortality in the course of rangers defending wildlife.  In South Africa this year alone, (January to May) 5 poachers have already been shot.  Two of them died!  It should be remembered that poachers more often than not opt against passive arrest with fierce resistance.  And as for rhinos, South Africa has already lost 90 to poaching in the first 5 months of this year (2010) – more than 1 every two days!

Thuli Brilliance Makama and her supporters have told the world that an estimated 100 innocent people have been killed by rangers in Swaziland in the name of poaching.  The commentary actually reads: “Since 1992, an estimated 100 lives have been violently taken in the name of the Game Act”. Makama then follows full face - not contradicting the commentator, but supporting his sensational statement.  Then Senelisiwe Ntjangaze, presumably representing the NGO Skillshare, joins the fray and endorses it with: “Some of the killings had absolutely nothing to do with poaching…”  This out of context intrusion creates a damaging perception among an uninformed audience that BGP just goes around hunting innocent people for sport with impunity.  Musa Hlope is yapping the same lie.  And this in turn insultingly suggests that Swaziland does not even have a police force of any substance.  It is sad that there is never any expression of thanks by such people to the Royal Swaziland Police Force and the Umbutfo Defence Force for keeping Swaziland safe; nor is there any appreciation of our Leadership for the high levels of peace and stability we all enjoy in Swaziland – to say nothing of Swaziland’s rangers whose commitment at the sharp end, and at high risk of bodily harm and death, is to protect the Kingdom’s wildlife heritage for posterity. 

Musa Hlope has joined Makama in her quest to discredit BGP, but has not once called on BGP to verify Makama’s claims which have now also become his.  This surely negates his platform for social justice?  Instead, he has jumped on the bandwagon (a bandwagon also dependent on foreign donor finance) in pious judgement of game rangers, (who are also Swazis with families) to fulfil his own political agenda.  He is also noticeably silent on rangers who have given their lives in the line of duty.  So are Makama and Skillshare’s Ntjangaze selective in their sympathies.

Also, one must not lose sight of the fact that BGP is an official law enforcement body operating in accordance with its mandate to administer and manage the Swaziland Game Act and CITES under the direction of the King’s Office.  Realise too, that poaching is a serious crime and that many poachers are armed and dangerous.  Some even use weapons of war.  As with any law enforcement agency, BGP has to deal with criminals who fiercely resist arrest making it necessary sometimes to employ measures of restraint which transcend passive arrest.

BUT TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE, IN THE PRECEDING 10 YEAR PERIOD, BGP HAS ARRESTED 1143 POACHERS, SEIZING 96 ILLEGAL FIREARMS FROM THEM.  OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS, 6 POACHERS AND 5 GAME RANGERS HAVE BEEN KILLED IN ACTION.  THIS REVEALS A POACHER MORTALITY OF 0.5% OVER THE 1143 POACHERS ARRESTED AND HANDED TO THE POLICE FOR PROSECUTION.  FINALLY, TO EMPHASISE THIS PERSPECTIVE EVEN MORE, 6 RANGERS HAVE BEEN ARRESTED BY BGP GAME RANGERS FOR MALPRACTICE (INCLUDING POACHING) AND ALSO HANDED TO THE POLICE FOR PROSECUTION.

To answer some of the outrageous allegations by Musa Hlope who joins Makama with his own bit of spice that “rangers hunt poachers for sport” and that poachers are simply “poor people who kill wildlife to survive”, BGP offers this response: You have rich people and you have poor people – you always have had and you always will have – and this is a fact of life.  But you also have laws and these are the laws of the land, equally applicable to everyone, rich or poor.  And Society has outlawed criminals, whether they are poor or rich; that is also a fact of life.  So being poor does not give one the right to steal or rob or poach.  Poor people are even more affected by crime than rich people are because the theft of their chickens or their goat has greater impact, and no poor person would willingly allow his chickens or his goat to be stolen, no matter how poor the thief who steals it.  And this, in perspective, must all be seen against the fact that most poachers pay their bail and then their fines.  They also usually carry cell phones, so the ‘hunter/gatherer’ status claimed by Makama and Hlope in this issue is nothing short of sensationalised fantasy, concocted to suit their own agendas.  Another question for these hypocritical vocal protagonists of “social justice”: How can you justify your own comfortable lifestyles – including your use of upmarket accommodations – knowing that there are hungry people out there who have no meal for today, instead of rather sharing your salary and spending money with them?

BGP is accused of evicting a poverty stricken community from its home.  Omissions in these accusations are that this community was resettled on a farm almost twice as large as the one it vacated which was purchased to expand one of Swaziland’s parks.  This farm comprises fertile virgin land which the Government (the Ministry of Agriculture) cleared for each family for both crop plantings and homesteads; the resettlement was therefore officially supported at the highest level.  Being allocated this farm by the Head of State replaced this community’s illegal squatter status with legitimised tenure instead!  The farm the community now occupies is closer to schools, hospitals, shops, power and dip tanks for their cattle.  It has permanent potable water which the farm they vacated did not have.  It is on a main district road giving the community much-improved communications.  Furthermore, BGP provided the families with borehole water, obviating their previous need to share drinking water with livestock which urinated and defecated in the same water, if, after rain, there happened to be any water at all.  BGP also provided the families with building material and transport.  BGP also built modest dwellings for those who were unable to do so for themselves.  BGP also provided building materials for their ‘umphakatsi’ (traditional administration structure).  Unfortunately BGP’s cash payout offer to each homestead evaporated in legal costs when Makama intruded to interrupt and delay their evacuation with litigation brought by Yonge Nawe against BGP.  Consequently the full legal process was forced to follow and the Farm Dwellers’ Tribunal found in favour of BGP.  Makama then even went as far as contradicting the Swazi National Council and, ignoring the Tribunal’s verdict, took the matter to the High Court of Swaziland. 
The end of this intrusion by Yonge Nawe was Makama’s failure, leaving the community worse off than before because BGP’s cash compensation offer to each family was consumed by the litigation.   What a waste of valuable resources – and of international donor money Yonge Nawe spent on futile but costly litigation.  And what a financial letdown for each family of the resettled community.

Perhaps, with her windfall of wealth, Makama will compensate the money she caused each family to lose because of her interference in the matter?!  That would certainly be the decent thing to do.

On the positive side, an increasing number of the resettled “victims” are now openly saying how much better off they are now in terms of location than they were before they moved.

Furthermore, Makama in her sensational canvassing, conveniently skates around the reality that communities are legitimately moved and resettled all the time for airport construction, townships, agricultural expansion and other developments in the National interest – why not  for game reserves?  Indeed, under King Sobhuza II communities were resettled to make way for the development of Malolotja, Mlilwane, Hlane and Mlawula.

None of the above is revealed by Makama, whose incitement of communities against rangers and the conservation community and nature itself, (in the name of human rights abuses and social justice) is so much more lucrative to her than the truth and the realities.  It also encourages poachers to continue with their illegal mission of destroying the Kingdom’s wildlife.

Makama has also been quick to remind people that her winnings (E1 million) are hers and not Yonge Nawe’s – yet Yonge Nawe paid for the action!  How can this possibly be?

Makama’s story of her so-called “courageous 5 year court battle with the Minister” to have an NGO appointed to the Swaziland Environmental Authority, for which she won one million one hundred thousand Emalangeni (E1 1000 000.00), has another side to it.  Makama was an appointed member of the Board of the Environmental Authority for 9 years.  The procedure for appointment is that the Minister for the Environment is furnished with 3 names to choose from by the Coordinating Assembly for NGO’s (CANGO).  When, after 9 years as a Board member Makama was dropped and someone else was appointed in her place, she took the Minister to court, but this was considered by some with such disdain it hardly attracted comment.  So much for her 5 year long courageous battle with Government!  Even now from the names furnished to the Minister, neither Makama nor her Yonge Nawe has been chosen.  Instead a representative from SWADE (a parastatal) is appointed.  Perhaps this is another opportunity for another million Emalangeni prize?! 

Musa Hlope’s mis-presented intrusions into poaching issues are both beyond belief and irresponsible.  Calling people to the streets in defence of poachers as Hlope has done, is not good for Swaziland and has far reaching negative consequences for the Kingdom both at home and far beyond our borders.  Hlope’s reckless attack on the private sector too does nothing to encourage investment.  Yet job opportunity is nationally recognised as one of Swaziland’s top priorities and job opportunity comes from investments and investment comes in considerable measure, from the private sector.  Makama’s assertions that job opportunity is not enough in terms of equity of access and benefit sharing is irresponsible.  How can she say this when many Swazis’ salaries sustain more than 30 jobless people?

It is wise for even reckless people to THINK before they SPEAK!

Big Game Parks, under direction of the King’s Office, encourages investment in wildlife by the private sector because it expands the wildlife estate of Swaziland, which is good for tourism and creates sustainable job opportunity.  The multiplier benefits of tourism derived from parks and wildlife are vast and there are very few tourist attractions to match those provided by the natural world – parks, wildlife and unspoilt habitats.  It is sad therefore that Hlope and Makama find profit in defending criminals bent on destroying wildlife and the job creating investments which flow from it.  It must also be remembered that the private sector too has buried its dead – killed in action – in the line of duty in defence of Swaziland’s natural heritage.  They were also Swazis with families.  Yet both Makama and Hlope are remarkably silent on these deaths.  Remember too, that the dead poachers had no need to die.  Had they passively surrendered to arrest, they would be alive today.  The choice was entirely theirs – as was their choice to poach or not to poach in the first place.

Swaziland does not need bad press – there is so much more value and benefit in building the Kingdom’s positive image which actually exists in abundance, than destroying it for self-seeking political agendas!

And what does this all amount to?  MONEY!  It’s all about money!

There are many different ways of earning money – some novel, imaginative and entrepreneurial - others drab and uninteresting.  But seemingly the most lucrative way – however outrageous it may be, is by manufacturing perceptions on human rights atrocities and then exploiting these among good-hearted donors, and the money comes flowing in!  There is nothing more fertile than alleged human abuse to pull at the heartstrings of generous people who quite rightly stand for the rights of downtrodden, poverty stricken humanity, and want to help.   The obvious way to help is with money and Makama is not shy asking for it!

But it is indeed extraordinary how prostituting the values of an environmental NGO for the purpose of attracting donor money and image building in this way can be so successful.

The growing problem of escalating poaching, as is now beginning to happen in Swaziland, is a consequence of promised legal support and compensation to poaching ‘victims’ by Makama and Hlope.  With the ever-present threat of growing bushmeat, rhino horn and ivory markets, poaching is again becoming huge business across the continent.  So is crime.  The last thing we need is any form of incitement and encouragement which gives hope and strength to poachers, traffickers and syndicates and other criminals.  Law enforcement agencies (Royal Swaziland Police, Big Game Parks, Swaziland National Trust Commission) need all the positive support and encouragement they can get in stamping out crime - not treacherous, destructive lies whose motives destroy national stability and peace.

Big Game Parks
June 2010