Trade in live elephants from Zimbabwe & Namibia

Discussion on Elephant Management and poaching topics
User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 75834
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: Trade in live elephants from Zimbabwe & Namibia

Post by Richprins »

It would be nice if they take some babies out of Hwange and Gona...they are dying there in the drought! O-/


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Trade in live elephants from Zimbabwe -

Post by Lisbeth »

Image

International trade in live African Elephants. The regulation of international trade in live African Elephants. A definition of “appropriate and acceptable destination”

BY CITES - JULY 2020 - CITES REPORT

The regulation of international trade in live African Elephants. A definition of “appropriate and acceptable destination”

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Trade in live elephants from Zimbabwe & Namibia

Post by Lisbeth »

Concerning the Statement issued by the CITES Secretariat – Exports of live wild-caught African elephants from Namibia

BY HSI - 23RD SEPTEMBER 2021 - HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL

A report to the CITES secretariat concerning the recent statement on proposed elephant exports from Namibia.

Via electronic mail (Ivonne.higuero@cites.org)

Ms. Ivonne Higuero
CITES Secretary General
Maison internationale de l’environnement 11 Chemin des Anémones
CH-1219 Châtelaine, GENEVA
Switzerland

Dear Madame Secretary General,

We would like to thank the Secretariat for the update to its recent statement on proposed elephant exports from Namibia. We appreciate this rapid response, following our letter to you dated 15 September. However, having considered the text with great care, in our opinion the wording of the update does not address the substance of our concerns, and continues to give the impression that the Secretariat implicitly shares Namibia’s interpretation and endorses Namibia’s intent to export live elephants under the terms of Article III of the Convention.

The press has certainly taken the view that the Secretariat has directly endorsed these exports. The Namibian Sun, in an article dated 10 September1, stated that, according to the Secretariat, “Namibia must trade such live specimens under Article III of the convention”.2 An even more explicit article in the regional newspaper, the Southern Times, dated 18 September3 (the day after the updated statement appeared) is headlined “CITES gives green light for sale of live elephants” and states that CITES “has given Namibia the thumbs up to commercially trade live elephants” and that “CITES’ approval of Namibia’s proposed sale of jumbos could make things easier for other countries in the region”.4 These articles, in our view, are potentially embarrassing to the Secretariat and may harm implementation of the Convention. More crucially, they indicate that the wording in the Secretariat’s update was insufficient to clarify that the Secretariat was not purporting to pre-empt the mandated deliberations of the Standing Committee by endorsing these exports.

As stated in our original letter to you, we firmly believe that the appropriate course for the Secretariat would be to withdraw its statement altogether. We reiterate that request , but we believe that it is now imperative for the Secretariat to go further and state clearly that it has revised its earlier statement (as opposed to simply updating it), that it does not endorse the export of live elephants from Namibia outside of the terms of the existing annotation, that Namibia’s interpretation of whether Article III can be used for such exports remains under consideration by the Standing Committee, and that Parties with Appendix II elephant populations subject to annotations should not consider any exports of live elephants under Article III unless and until the Standing Committee has concluded its deliberations and, critically, its recommendations have been presented to, debated by, and adopted (or not) by the Conference of the Parties,.

The export of these elephants could be imminent. Therefore, your clarification as to the Secretariat’s position is a matter of priority. As the media has continued to report on Namibia’s planned exports and the Secretariat’s original statement, our organizations intend to continue to publicly oppose the capture and export of live elephants for ex-situ destinations. We would welcome an opportunity to discuss this matter directly with you.

Thank you for your attention. Best regards,

Vera Weber, President, Fondation Franz Weber
Georgina Lamb, CEO, David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation Daniela Freyer, Co-Founder, Pro Wildlife
Dr. Mark Jones, Head of Policy, Born Free Foundation
Dr. Liz Tyson, Programs Director, Born Free USA
Iris Ho, Director, Wildlife Policy, Humane Society International Will Travers, President, Species Survival Network
Heike Henderson, Member of the Board, Future for Elephants DJ Schubert, Wildlife Biologist, Animal Welfare Institute Charlotte Nithart, Director, Robin des Bois

cc. Ms Carolina Caceres, Chair, CITES Standing Committee, Carolina.caceres@canada.ca
Inger Andersen, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, unenvironment-executiveoffice@un.org
Matthias Lörstcher, Chair of the CITES Animals Committee, Matthias.Loertscher@blv.admin.ch

US Officials
Dr. Rosemarie Gnam, US Fish and Wildlife Service DSA, rosemarie_gnam@fws.gov Ms Pamela Scruggs, US Fish and Wildlife Service DMA, pamela_scruggs@fws.gov

EU Officials
EU Commission Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans, frans-timmermans- contact@ec.europa.eu
Commissioner Sinkevičius Environment, Oceans and Fisheries, cab-sinkevicius- contact@ec.europa.eu
Florika Fink-Hooijer, Director General DG Environment, Florika.Fink-Hooijer@ec.europa.eu Hilde Vautmans MEP, Chair MEPs for Wildlife Group, hilde.vautmans@europarl.europa.eu Pascal Canfin MEP, Chair European Parliament Environment Committee, pas-cal.canfin@europarl.europa.eu
César Luena MEP, Rapporteur EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, cesar.luena@europarl.europa.eu
Katarina Zeiler, Slovenian EU Presidency, Katarina.Zeiler-Groznik@gov.si
Hilde Vautmans MEP, Chair MEPs for Wildlife Group,
hilde.vautmans@europarl.europa.eu

Original report: https://www.hsi.org/wp-content/uploads/ ... tariat.pdf


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Trade in live elephants from Zimbabwe & Namibia

Post by Lisbeth »

Dangerous precedent: CITES sows confusion over live elephant exports

Image

By Don Pinnock - 12. Oct. 2021

Namibia and Zimbabwe are likely to exploit the loopholes created by the UN wildlife trade organisation’s conflicting advisories on the export of elephants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elephants, like humans, are highly social, sentient animals. Flushing babies out of panicked herds with trucks and choppers for captivity in zoos and entertainment parks or crating them individually for long-haul transport to non-African countries is cruel. It’s also highly detrimental to their welfare.

So when the Parties to the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) resolved in 2019 that it was unacceptable to remove wild elephants from their natural habitat, conservationists celebrated. It had been a long battle.

No less than 87 CITES Parties had voted to restrict trade in elephants to only in-situ conservation programmes or secure areas in the wild within the species’ natural and historical range. Wild elephants, it was asserted, could no longer be shipped to zoos and circuses, barring exceptional circumstances or emergency situations.

The dust settled, Covid trans-border restrictions tamped it down and elephant sales fell out of the news. But the desire to profit from elephants did not leave the field. There were some who were poring over the small-print, particularly Namibia and Zimbabwe.

In December 2020, Namibia published a tender for the sale of 170 wild elephants from the north of the country. It said the elephant population had grown from about 7,500 in 1995 to 24,000 in 2019 (a hotly contested claim) and said the sale was a way to reduce overpopulation and the resulting human-animal conflicts.

In Zimbabwe, Kenyan film-maker and environmental investigator Karl Ammann got a tip-off that there were plans afoot to put together a Hwange elephant capture team with the help of a Chinese link-man.

Namibia had previously unilaterally decreed some live elephants it wanted to trade as Appendix 1, which should confer the highest level of protection. This was based on its interpretation of an addendum to the CITES annotation that says that if Namibia doesn’t comply with the conditions listed in the annotation, the “specimen” in question should be upgraded to Appendix 1. Paradoxically, the in-situ restriction doesn’t apply to Appendix 1 elephants.

This interpretation is highly controversial and sets a dangerous precedent for the future protection from trade of wild elephants.

Conservationists were confident that the 2019 CITES ruling would block these sales, but, on 8 September, the organisation posted an advisory on its website that appeared to offer exporting countries the go-ahead to export on what it called a “special Appendix 2 conditionality”.

The advisory appeared to go against the 2019 in-situ CITES ruling and it was not a call the secretariat was legally entitled to make. According to Georgina Lamb, CEO of the David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation: “The secretariat’s intervention is highly irregular and has potentially troublesome consequences. It appears to give a green light to these contentious exports and to pre-empt the authority of the CITES Standing Committee by offering an opinion on a legal matter that is still undecided by the Parties.”

The Franz Weber Foundation agreed that the secretariat appeared to have overstepped its mandate. Its job, it said, was to “ensure the operational functioning of the Convention and not to substitute the Parties’ judgement on how the Convention is applied”.

Interpretation

It reminded the secretariat that Namibia’s interpretation of the CITES regulations was under review with the CITES Standing Committee. Any exports of elephants, therefore, ought to be shelved until the committee issued its findings in 2022.

According to the CITES advisory, live specimens from the Namibian African elephant population could be traded “for in-situ conservation programmes” so long as it wasn’t detrimental to the survival of that species and that the recipient country was suitably equipped to house and care for the animals. It also said export could take place as long as it was “not primarily commercial”.

There are two big holes in that. First, “in situ” means “in place”, which must surely preclude trade to elsewhere. The second problem is the word “primarily”. A zoo, for example, could claim it’s primarily a conservation organisation but it is undoubtedly a commercial operation.

Botswana’s Southern Times noted the effect of the advisory: “CITES has given Namibia the thumbs up to commercially trade live elephants, potentially opening the door for other southern African countries to do the same. Countries like Zimbabwe have in recent years faced a backlash for commercially exporting elephants and CITES’s approval of Namibia’s proposed sale of jumbos could make things easier for other countries in the region.”

Namibia’s plans for the sale became public in August when it announced it had accepted three of five bidders for the sale of 57 elephants, 42 of which were to be exported.The statement did not say who the importers were. In 2013, Namibia exported 24 elephants to Mexico and Cuba through the use of its Appendix 1 interpretation.

The Franz Weber Foundation warned these captures and exports would likely endanger some of Namibia’s elephant populations and were unlikely to benefit local communities. The foundation, as well as other NGOs, including Born Free, the Humane Society International and Pro Wildlife, have appealed to Namibian authorities to urgently halt these exports and have asked the CITES Secretariat to withdraw any statement that appears to endorse Namibia’s intentions.

They noted that captures would also take place within the country’s unique desert-adapted elephant population, already threatened by years of drought, habitat loss and trophy hunting.

The imminent capture of elephants in Zimbabwe was denied by the government. A spokesperson for Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority said accusations were “speculative” and “baseless”.

Commenting during the 31st meeting of the CITES Animal Committee in June, the Zimbabwean delegate Rosaline Mandisodza, chief ecologist at ZimParks, denied there were export plans: “We are no longer trading outside of range. We are guided by the animals committee and the secretariat.”

But the Pro-Elephant Network, a worldwide association of elephant specialists, said it continued to receive intelligence that its concerns were legitimate and it sent a letter to Zimbabwe’s President Emmerson Mnangagwa, the CITES Secretariat and the Chinese Conservation Department calling for the immediate suspension of capture plans.

It added that, according to the CITES trade database, between 2012 and 2019, Zimbabwe had exported 140 juvenile elephants to captive facilities in China, and another four to the United Arab Emirates.

CITES seemed to have realised it had opened the loophole too wide and, on 17 September, tried to walk back its earlier statement with a replacement even more convoluted than the first (which was deleted).

Its updated statement, however, failed to clarify that the secretariat was not endorsing the exports as seemingly implied in the first statement. The secretariat’s statements appear to give Namibia and Zimbabwe the potential cover to move forward with exports.

According to Dr Mark Jones, head of policy for the Born Free Foundation: “What Namibia proposes – using a dubious interpretation of the listing rules to create a loophole that suits their purpose – risks driving a coach and horses through the underlying principles of the convention and the authority of decisions agreed by the Parties.”

Lynn Johnson of Nature Needs More was disgusted by the mess. “Given all the loopholes, the non-binding agreements and the fact that after 45 years of operation it isn’t yet mandatory for CITES signatories to have an enforcement authority, it’s time for the CITES convention to get a significant overhaul… CITES is failing to protect endangered species and is failing to ensure that all trade is legal. Given the scale of biodiversity loss as a result of trade, this is no longer acceptable and CITES needs to be modernised.”

In an appeal to world leaders at the G20 in Rome last month, former CITES Secretary-General John Scanlon seemed to agree. The CITES framework for regulating trade and combating wildlife crime, he said, was inadequate and posed a risk to public health.

At the time of writing, there was no evidence that either Namibia or Zimbabwe were halting arrangements to export elephants out of their natural habitats and to the rest of the world. DM168


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Trade in live elephants from Zimbabwe & Namibia

Post by Lisbeth »

Image
Forty-two wild elephants in Namibia have been sold to international bidders, but where they’re going has not been disclosed. About half have been captured so far, with two calves born since, in captivity. This mother and baby in Namibia were photographed three years ago. PHOTOGRAPH BY WOLFGANG KAEHLER/LIGHTROCKET VIA GETTY IMAGES

CONCERN MOUNTS FOR THE WILD-CAUGHT NAMIBIAN ELEPHANTS TO BE TRADED WITH THE UAE

BY PREN - 18TH FEBRUARY 2022 - PRO ELEPHANT NETWORK

RE: URGENT UPDATE ON THE TRADE IN WILD CAUGHT ELEPHANTS FROM NAMIBIA TO THE UAE

In October 2021, 22 elephants were captured and taken to a holding facility in Gobabis, the regional capital of the Omaheke Region of eastern Namibia. The holding facility is located on a trophy hunting safari business called GoHunt Namibia Safaris owned by Mr Gerrie Odendaal.

The wild elephants are being held captive in preparation for export to zoos in the United Arab Emirates, possibly to the Al Ain Zoo−a member of the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA)−and the Sharjah Desert Park. According to reports this deal was organised by a South African wildlife trader/ broker and a large amount of money has changed hands in this clearly commercial transaction. Additional information received by some of the PREN Members claims that several charter companies have allegedly refused to ship the elephants to their destination.

A Legal Opinion was obtained by the EMS Foundation, a member of the Pro Elephant Network in 2021. The legal Opinion stated that it would not be lawful for the Namibia CITES Management Authority to issue an export permit under either Appendix I or Appendix II of CITES, nor for a country outside of the range states for Loxodonta Africana to issue an import permit, particularly because Appendix II does not apply to the export and the available evidence indicates that exporting the Namibian wild caught elephants to an ex situ programme cannot meet the requirements of Article III for trade in Appendix I species, particularly the non-detriment criterion.

The removal of wild African elephants for captive use is not supported by the African Elephant Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission (IUCN/SSN AfESG). In an official statement they clarified, “Believing there to be no direct benefit for in situ conservation of African elephants, the African Elephant Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission does not endorse the removal of African elephants from the wild for any captive use.”

In addition, the Namibia Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism confirmed in a public statement, issued on 15 February 2022, that the elephants were captured in the Kunene region of Namibia. For the record, we are relying upon our sources who have always indicated that the captured elephants are from threatened desert adapted populations.

In a letter, dated 31 January 2022, to PREN from the EAZA Executive Office, the EAZA Elephant Taxon Advisory Group (TAG) and the EAZA Ex-situ Programme for African Elephant (EEP), they stated that the EAZA Ex situ Programme (EEP) for African elephants has no intention nor need to import African elephants from the wild. They also stated that EAZA “is not principally against legal and sustainable importation of animals from the wild to accredited zoos in exceptional circumstances, and when in support of population management and species conservation needs. The EAZA Elephant Taxon Advisory Group (TAG) and the two EEPs have taken the position that such circumstances do not apply at present and thus don’t support importation of elephants from the wild into the EAZA population. EAZA Members are bound to abide by this position of the EEP and TAG.”

Since December 2020 the Members of PREN have attempted to engage with the Namibian authorities regarding the capture and sale of wild elephants in Namibia. More specifically PREN members requested information on the Non- Detriment Finding and data on the population and condition of the capture. Unfortunately, all the communications from PREN, including those sent in August, September and October 2021 were ignored and no action was taken to stop the capture of wild elephants in Namibia.

Access to information and the right to know is the fundamental cornerstone of democracy, transparency and accountability. This is squarely a public interest matter.

On the 12th February 2022, Namibian investigative journalist John Grobler, was apparently arrested for allegedly flying a drone over the aforementioned farm, his request for access having been denied. Grobler was apparently charged with trespassing on private property under Ordinance 3 of 1962. The 1962 ordinance clearly refers to a person physically trespassing and could not possibly refer to the use of a modern drone. The Pro Elephant Network joins the protests from many national and international institutions which firmly condemned the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism (MEFT) for this action and NAMPOL for the charges with no evidence and the confiscation of the journalist’s material.

Aerial footage confirms that the holding facility is surrounded by high walls and the sparse natural vegetation has been consumed by the elephants over the past four months. There is little indication of shade or shelter in the holding area. This raises severe concerns for the welfare of the elephants, in particular for the two baby calves who were born into this captive situation. The birth of the two calves would also indicate that the capture and transport to Namibia’s East, to the holding facility situated about 600 km away from the area of the capture, had included elephants in their last trimester of pregnancy. This raises further welfare, safety and legal concerns. The advanced pregnancies should have been identified prior to capture.

Further questions relating to the legality of the capture have been raised, if the elephants had flown out as planned, the export of the elephants would be in violation of the IATA regulations, which prohibit the travelling of animals in their last trimester of pregnancy.

In addition, transporting the elephants with calves adds further risk. The new-born calves would need to be forcibly separated from their mothers for the duration of the long journey. A mother and calf cannot travel in the same crate, because the risk of the mother trampling or injuring the baby during the loading and unloading procedures is too high.

PREN will provide further information if requested on the understanding that both EAZA and CITES will take the necessary precautionary measures to halt the export of these elephants to the UAE and to ensure that these elephants are returned to the wild as soon as possible.

PREN Members urgently request that:
▪ the two CITES Parties halt the export of these elephants to the UAE and ensure that these elephants are returned to the wild as soon as possible;
▪ the CITES Standing Committee takes a clear position on this unfortunate matter of the capture of wild elephants in Namibia for export to captivity at its upcoming 74th meeting in Lyon, France, 7 – 11 March 2022;
▪ the CITES Secretariat and the CITES Parties commits to robust disciplinary measures if the export goes ahead.

Original article: https://www.proelephantnetwork.org/wp-c ... 022022.pdf


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Trade in live elephants from Zimbabwe & Namibia

Post by Lisbeth »

Namibia’s elephant auction: Evaluating the results

Posted on March 23, 2022 by Gail Thomson in the OPINION EDITORIAL post series.

Image
Note from our CEO Simon Espley: ‘This is an emotional topic for most of us. The author of this opinion editorial on Namibia’s elephant auction succinctly differentiates between the science and the ethical issues at play and between fact and speculation. This is a tough read for those of us who believe that there can be no justification for capturing wild elephants and subjecting them to incredible hardships and early death in zoos and other forms of prison. The lucky ones will be moved to large protected areas in Africa, but many will disappear through CITES loopholes into the fog of the wildlife trading industry. That said, it is important to read the facts so that our opinions are informed, and to recognise that solutions have to be found in instances where elephants and humans clash for space and water.’
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

By Gail Thomson, originally published by Conservation Namibia

Namibia’s decision to auction 170 elephants from human-elephant conflict hotspots has to date resulted in the capture and translocation of 37 wild elephants from the Kamanjab and Omatjete areas. Both captures for the elephant auction involved family groups of elephants, with one group translocated to a private reserve in Namibia run by N/a’an ku sê and the other exported to two safari parks in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Following the conclusion of these transactions, more details are now available that allow for an evaluation of the decision to auction elephants and its consequences.

The reasons for this tender are covered in detail in a previous article on this topic. Elephant numbers are increasing and their range is expanding in Namibia, which is both a cause for celebration and concern. The key concern is related to human-elephant conflict, especially in areas where elephants have not occurred for decades. The dominant land use in these areas is livestock farming, where fencing and water infrastructure (pipes, reservoirs, drinking troughs) are not built to withstand elephants.

The elephant removal plan was thus a short-term action to alleviate some of the conflict by removing elephant herds from high-conflict areas, while simultaneously providing income to the Game Products Trust Fund (GPTF). This Fund does not contribute to MEFT’s overall budget, but is ring-fenced for conservation projects and the Human-Wildlife Conflict Self-Reliance Scheme. Long-term plans that MEFT wants to implement to reduce human-elephant conflict would thus be funded through the GPTF. Offers to pay the GPTF without removing any elephants from the target areas were not aligned with MEFT’s primary objective to reduce elephant numbers and did not include specific amounts of money or detailed plans of action. Such vague promises were therefore not considered valid bids.

Thus far, N$ 4.4 million has been paid to the GPTF by two successful bidders. One of these bidders, the N/a’an ku sê Foundation, translocated 15 elephants from the Omatjete area to their newly established private reserve covering 33,000 hectares. The other successful bidder is game farmer Gerrie Odendaal, who bought the elephant herds and resold them to two safari parks in the UAE. Since the latter bid involves exporting elephants into captive conditions outside the natural elephant range, it is the more controversial of the two. (Note that another 20 elephants have been sold on auction but are yet to be captured, and their destination yet to be revealed.)


Image
(Left) The coloured marks represent elephant movements in Namibia, and the southern border of Etosha is represented by the upper green line. The herd moved to N/a’an ku sê’s property came from the pale blue area (Omatjete-Kalkfeld-Fransfontein). The herd exported to UAE via quarantine in Gobabis was from the pale green area (near Kamanjab). The core range of desert-adapted elephants is around the dry riverbeds in communal conservancies and protected areas further west. (Right) A land use-map showing the same overview of Namibia, demonstrating freehold and communal farming areas. Note that the desert-adapted elephant population generally ranges to the west of the red line on the map (areas receiving less than 150mm of rain per year on average)
The main issues involved with capturing wild elephants for the purposes of captivity relate to elephant conservation and welfare. Exporting elephants internationally must further satisfy conditions set by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Here, I provide relevant information on each of these issues as they relate to the current elephant auction.

Elephant Conservation

There are two aspects of MEFT’s elephant tender that need to be considered to evaluate this decision in terms of elephant conservation. The first is whether there was any conservation value to this decision in Namibia, and the second is whether there is any conservation value at the elephants’ ultimate destinations.

The contribution to GPTF and the short-term alleviation of some human-elephant conflict in the two target areas has some conservation value. This is especially so if the N$ 4.4 million is earmarked not just for conservation projects generally but for implementing longer-term research and conservation projects that aim to reduce conflict and assist local farmers. Alleviating the current conflict by removing some elephants (other herds remain in the area) further shows these farmers that MEFT is willing to take concrete action to reduce conflict in the long term. Evidence of collaborative projects between MEFT, the Namibian University of Science and Technology’s Biodiversity Research Centre and Elephant Human Relations Aid strongly suggest that the elephant removals will be followed up with future assistance.

The case for elephants being exported to safari parks in the UAE having conservation value at their destination is much weaker. The Namibian Chamber of Environment (NCE) strongly agrees with the IUCN African Elephant Specialist Group on this matter: keeping elephants in captivity provides no direct benefit to elephant conservation in the wild. As Dr Chris Brown, CEO of NCE states, “keeping elephants in zoos is a Victorian-era practice that has no place in modern conservation, which focuses on maintaining wild animal populations and their associated ecosystems”.

This is part of a larger debate, however, as zoos and safari parks worldwide claim that they have a role to play in educating the public and creating awareness of the need to conserve animals in Africa. Some zoos provide conservation grants, while others claim to contribute to species conservation through research and captive breeding programmes. One of the safari parks receiving these Namibian elephants is a member of the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) and the other states that EAZA will be a partner in their future breeding programmes. Both parks have refused to be publicly named as destinations for these elephants.

Regardless of the claims made by zoos and safari parks of their contribution to conservation, it would have been vastly preferable if these elephants were sent to other African range states with depleted elephant populations. As MEFT discovered from the responses to their tender notice, however, there are vanishingly few areas in Africa that are ready to receive elephants at this time. MEFT is certainly willing to engage with other African countries to assist with restocking depleted elephant populations, but one would first have to address the causes of that depletion (e.g. poaching) before undertaking a reintroduction programme.

In early 2020, African Parks signed a management agreement with Iona National Park, which is part of a Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA) that includes Namibia’s Skeleton Coast National Park. Elephants from north-western Namibia would therefore be well-suited to conditions in south-western Angola. It will likely take a few years of improving the infrastructure and staff capacity to address poaching in Iona before they are ready to accept elephants. African Parks did not approach MEFT regarding these elephants, so it is reasonable to conclude that they are not ready to receive elephants yet. MEFT is more than willing to support an elephant translocation to Angola provided they receive a formal request from that government.

Moving elephants within Namibia to areas that are suitably fenced is another option, which was provided by N/a’an ku sê’s new private reserve. Like other Southern African nations with growing elephant populations, however, there are very few areas in Namibia that can host more elephants. Translocating the elephants back into Etosha National Park, for example, would have a low likelihood of success because Etosha’s population is close to its capacity. This is why these elephant groups broke out of Etosha in the first place – to seek water and grazing elsewhere. Further, the Etosha fence line is in no fit state to keep elephants inside the park. Even some private farms in Namibia that have elephants struggle to maintain their fences against elephant damage, thus becoming a source of human-elephant conflict rather than a solution.

With clearly limited options for translocating wild elephants to other areas within natural elephant range that could make a significant contribution to conservation, what other options remain for MEFT? The only other practical option for reducing elephant numbers in the short-term is culling. Unlike the tender option, this would provide no income to GPTF. Since CITES prevents international ivory trade, the only value that could be captured from culling is the meat that could be locally distributed or sold. As Botswana discovered, this option is even less popular among the general public than a live elephant auction.

Elephant Welfare

Some of the greatest protests against exporting elephants to captivity are related to animal welfare. Certainly, if the destination of these elephants were small concrete enclosures in disreputable zoos, this move would be rightly condemned on animal welfare grounds alone. The practice of separating young animals from their mothers and training them using cruel or questionable methods to “break” them is abhorrent. The conditions of the Namibian tender (that family groups had to be moved together) were such that unscrupulous buyers such as these would not be interested, and several other conditions set out in the tender document addressed elephant welfare during the translocation process.

Gerrie Odendaal, the game farmer who organised and paid for the translocation, quarantine and export of the 22 elephants destined for the UAE was also concerned for the welfare of these animals. He remained in constant contact with an independent veterinarian and the MEFT wildlife veterinarian during the time that the elephants were in his care. He says that when they arrived at his 28-hectare quarantine facility, the elephants were aggressive and afraid of people, probably because they were continually harassed on the farms around Kamanjab. Odendaal continues, “after a few weeks in my care, they calmed down considerably and even females with young calves were comfortable in the presence of people.” Odendaal commented, “I even fed the older bull with apples straight from my hand, although I respected their space and never approached them on the ground.”

Image
Gerrie Odendaal’s 28-hectare quarantine facility features a feeding area that elephants are free to move out of surrounded by shipping containers; A close view of this elephant’s left ear reveals several neat puncture holes, likely caused by small-calibre bullets used to chase the elephants away from farms; Caretakers stand on the containers to feed them and do not approach them from the ground; Artificial shade was created near the feeding area.

Photos of these elephants reveal neat puncture holes in the ears of some of the older females, which have most likely been caused by small-calibre bullets intended to chase the elephants away from farms where they were unwelcome. Sadly, one of the younger elephants seems to be an orphan. Odendaal speculates: “It is old enough to feed itself, but does not associate closely with any of the adult females. It seems that its mother was killed sometime before we captured the herd.”

The 28-hectare camp is based on the final destination facility at one of the safari parks (the elephant enclosure at the other one is 24 hectares). Prior to the elephants’ arrival, Odendaal’s quarantine area contained large camel thorn trees and plenty of smaller bushes, but the elephants have destroyed these trees in the last few months (the quarantine period had to be extended due to COVID-related travel restrictions). Artificial shade near the feeding area has therefore been provided to replace the shade trees. Odendaal provided bales of lucerne, branches harvested from bushes on the rest of his farm, and hundreds of apples to sustain the elephants’ healthy appetites. The herd was provided with fresh piped water and a muddy pool to cool themselves off.

In consultation with a veterinarian who has many years of experience with elephants, the 22 elephants that were captured in Kamanjab were split into two female herds, with one unrelated bull each, that were delivered to the two safari parks at the same time. While in quarantine, all of these elephants were kept together and the two sub-groups were identified by closely observing how the herd split up when moving around the camp. The elephants that were born in the quarantine facility (having been conceived in the wild prior to capture) were added to the Namibian CITES export permit and were provided with extra care during transit. On the Namibian side of this translocation, every effort was taken to ensure the welfare of these elephants, and the destinations in the UAE seem to be capable of maintaining a high welfare standard.

Concerns nonetheless remain about the destination of the next generation of elephants, if these herds breed successfully in the UAE. Dr Brown comments: “Their future is now out of our hands. Will they land up in Victorian-style, cramped zoos, or in even worse caged conditions in China? What prevents these safari parks from selling elephants on to less reputable places? It is imperative that zoo associations (EAZA and others) ensure that captive elephant populations are carefully monitored to prevent welfare abuses of this nature.”

CITES Permits

Import and export permits are not provided by CITES itself, but each country must have its own national authority that provides such permits, following rules and guidelines set by CITES. The national authorities report to CITES regularly on their numbers of imports and exports, and provide information to the CITES Secretariat on specific decisions when required.

CITES categorises plants and animals that are (or could be) threatened by international trade into Appendix I, II and III (Appendix III is not of concern here). Species in Appendix I are considered to be highly threatened by international trade. CITES therefore restricts all trade in these species, except under specific conditions. Appendix II species are considered to be not currently threatened by international trade, but could become so if this trade is not closely controlled. African elephants are listed as Appendix I in all range states except Namibia, Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe, where they are listed under Appendix II.

Previous exports of elephants from Zimbabwe to non-African states (including China and the UAE) were completed under Appendix II guidelines, which state that the animals can only go to appropriate and acceptable destinations. At the most recent CITES Conference of the Parties (CoP18) in 2019, the definition of what is appropriate and acceptable was amended to destinations located within the natural range of African elephants and that contribute to in situ (i.e. in the wild) conservation programmes.

A recent statement by CITES on the Namibian elephant export explains the conditions that national authorities must adhere to when issuing export and import permits for Appendix I and II species. From this statement, it is clear that if Appendix II conditions are not met, the animals must be treated as Appendix I species. Given the recent restrictions on exporting Appendix II species outside of elephant range, these Namibian elephants are being exported and imported under Appendix I conditions.

Under these conditions, the Namibian national authority (MEFT) must be satisfied that this particular deal is:
a) not detrimental to the survival of the species;
b) not illegal under national laws;
c) the translocation methods must minimise the risk of injury, damage to health or cruel treatment; and
d) that an import permit has been granted by the destination country.

The Namibian government has met all of these conditions and is therefore operating within CITES regulations.

As the importing country, the UAE national authority must be satisfied that:
a) the transaction is not detrimental to the survival of the species;
b) the facility where the elephants will be kept is suitably equipped to house and care for them; and
c) the elephants are not to be used for primarily commercial purposes.

The last clause does not refer to money being paid to the exporter for the animals, but for how the buyer in the importing country will use those animals. Since the UAE has granted an import permit that covers both safari parks, it seems that their national authority is satisfied that they meet all three of these conditions (the third condition is described in more detail here).

On final evaluation

The definitive evaluation of MEFT’s decision to auction 170 elephants is thus not straightforward. From a CITES point of view, it is legal. In judging whether or not it was a good decision, one must take into account both conservation and welfare concerns.

For conservation purposes, at the very least, these decisions must not compromise the survival of the elephant population. Removing 170 elephants from farmlands outside protected areas will not have a detrimental effect on the survival of the Namibian elephant population, thereby meeting this minimum condition. The most vulnerable sub-population in Namibia occurs in arid areas on the unfenced communal conservancies and protected areas in the far west: these are commonly known as the desert-adapted elephants. The elephants that were removed are not part of the desert-adapted population, but occur directly south of Etosha.

MEFT and its partners are implementing a longer-term plan to try and mitigate the conflict between farmers and the remaining elephants. It is reasonable to say that a net gain for conservation was achieved for Namibia by selling rather than culling these herds. Nevertheless, keeping elephants in captivity has no direct conservation value, as reintroductions from captivity into the wild are far more costly and risky for the elephants than wild-wild translocations.

On the welfare side, our actions must limit animal suffering as much as possible. In this case, not removing elephants from farmlands also has negative welfare implications, as they may be harassed and even killed by frustrated farmers. We do not know what the elephants would choose if given the option between a safe, boring life in captivity, a dangerous life alongside hostile humans, or a quick death at the hands of a professional culling team. Of the options available for captivity, large safari park enclosures that allow whole family herds to stay together in semi-natural conditions are preferable to individual elephants living in cramped zoo conditions.

In an ideal world, none of this would be necessary. Humans and elephants would have no problems living side-by-side, the elephant range could keep expanding across southern Africa with no difficulties, and poaching would no longer be a problem. No elephants would be kept in captivity worldwide, and anyone wishing to see an African elephant would visit protected areas on the continent and thus boost tourism revenues. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. In reality, decision-makers have to strike a balance between competing human and elephant needs, while taking elephant conservation and welfare into account.


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Trade in live elephants from Zimbabwe & Namibia

Post by Lisbeth »

North West trophy hunting, the ghost and the dodgy deal — how Namibian tuskers got to Middle East zoos

Image
The remains of what was a 30-strong Kamanjab herd of elephants: too many bulls and calves. (Photo: Supplied)

By John Grobler | 30 May 2022

The hidden hand of North West’s canned hunting industry is involved in the controversial export of Namibian elephants.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A four-month investigation has found that North West’s canned hunting industry was behind the controversial export of 24 wild-caught Namibian desert elephants to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in late February 2022. It was closely supported by the top officials of Namibia’s Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism (MEFT).

The exported herd was among 57 elephants sold by a tender issued late in December 2020 by MEFT to catch and remove 170 elephants ranging outside of Namibia’s national parks, ostensibly to alleviate “rampant” human-elephant conflict.

A paper trail going back 40 years revealed how the canned hunting industry had taken advantage of a growing information gap between South Africa and Namibia’s regulatory authorities to create a ghost company that the controversial deal was run through to hide its true beneficiaries.

The deal not only robbed the Namibian state treasury of at least $2.3-million (about R33.3-million), but left the core problem of crop damage by elephants unresolved while deeply impacting the fragile ecology and ecotourism industry of the northwestern Kunene Region, also known as The Arid Eden.

Image
The elephants being loaded at the Hosea Kutako International Airport outside Windhoek on 25 February 2022 en route to three zoos in the United Arab Emirates. (Photo: Supplied)

“This sale will damage the ecotourism that has contributed revenue to the Kunene community’s economy,” Dr Keith Lindsay and two co-authors of the African Elephant Coalition wrote in a commentary on the sale.

“If the elephants disappear, other wildlife populations could also become a thing of the past. The loss of the elephants poses a risk that land could be lost for natural resources as more and more is taken over for commercial farming within the region.”

None of this appeared to be of concern to the Namibian government, though. In August 2021, Environment, Forestry and Tourism Minister Pohamba Shifeta announced that 57 elephants were “successfully sold” to one local and two foreign buyers, but refused to disclose who the bidders were by claiming contractual confidentiality.

This was to prove patently untrue: successful local bidder Dr Rudie van Vuuren of the Na’ankusê Wildlife Sanctuary subsequently publicly admitted that the secrecy surrounding the elephant tender was imposed by MEFT. “We wanted to go public, but the ministry asked us not to do so,” he said during a televised panel discussion on the controversial deal two weeks later.

So far, 37 elephants — two incomplete families — were caught in the arid northwestern region and removed. Fifteen were moved from Omajete to the new R400-million TimBila Lodge operated by the privately owned animal charity Na’ankusê and run by Van Vuuren on behalf of a mysterious Belgian investor, and 22 of the Kamanjab herd sold to canned hunting operator Gerrie Odendaal and his partners.

The remaining 20 elephants allocated to the other mystery foreign buyer had not been paid for a year later and remained free at the time of writing, MEFT’s executive director, Teofilus Nghitilila, confirmed at a 22 February press conference. He insisted that these 20 elephants were not destined for China, as widely speculated.

Shifeta said the elephant tender had netted the ministry R4.4-million — R1.1-million from Na’ankusê and R3.3-million from the UAE deal. However, it subsequently emerged that the UAE deal paid the local middlemen at least $3.3-million (about R50-million) in gross profits, of which only $950,000 (about R14-million) was reportedly paid over locally to Odendaal and his partners. The balance appears to have been pocketed by a foreign-registered ghost company called JJO Bees (Pty) Ltd — but more on this later.

MEFT has repeatedly and strenuously denied any allegations of malfeasance, insisting that its decisions were motivated only by its efforts to manage human-animal conflict in the rural, communal areas in the interest of long-term conservation.

‘Hunting conservation’ approach

The picture is further complicated by the fact that local conservation’s voice is dominated by foreign interests aligned to the WWF-funded “hunting conservation” approach that has seen Namibia open all its national parks except Etosha to trophy hunting since the late 1990s.

This approach has led to overhunting which, combined with the crippling 2013-18 drought, has decimated wildlife numbers in all communal areas operating under the official Community-Based Natural Resource Management model since 2012.

This relentless drive for profit at the expense of sustainable conservation was most visible in the export of 22 wild-caught elephants and two newborn calves to the Al Ain and Al Sharjah zoos in the UAE in late February.

Not only did this leave the alleged human-elephant conflict problem (MEFT’s formal motivation for this deal) in respect of crop damages largely unresolved, but the manner in which the deal was structured strongly suggested official complicity in the illegal externalisation of government revenue from conservation.

According to the 32-nation African Elephant Coalition, this export taking place a day before a meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in France was to discuss the transaction, further raised very serious questions about Namibia’s international conservation credentials.

MEFT’s Nghitilila, at a press conference held a week earlier to “clarify misconceptions” around the controversial and secretive deal, claimed their decision was legitimised in terms of Article III of the legally binding CITES convention.

As in the past when Namibia exported wild-caught elephants to Cuba and Mexico in 2012, MEFT had selectively used an Appendix I concession to allow for the efficient transfer of specimens between bona fide, in situ conservation programmes.

MEFT had used a loophole in the CITES legal mechanisms for transferring biological samples to smuggle a whole herd of elephants. Nghitilila’s assertion of compliance under Article III appeared to rest solely on the fact that he had issued the CITES permits to the game dealer Gerrie Odendaal and partners for the export before the elephants were captured in September 2021.

Nghitilila refused to respond to questions about whether he considered a commercial zoo and African theme park in a non-range country as bona fide, in situ African elephant conservation programmes, or why MEFT had not sold the elephants directly to the Middle East clients itself to maximise official revenue accruing to the Game Products Trust Fund.

When pressed on these points and asked to disclose the original tender documents and CITES permits he had issued, Nghitilila banned this reporter from the ministry’s official media platforms and from receiving any official ministerial press releases.

Ten days before this, a colleague and I were arrested by the Gobabis police and charged with trespassing by flying a drone over the elephant boma on Odendaal’s Mooiplaas farm close to the Botswana border, where he is also breeding white rhinos for the trophy hunting industry on behalf of a shadowy syndicate of speculators.

This arrest, in clear violation of constitutional rights of freedom of the press and the public interest in this matter, came after Odendaal and MEFT had stonewalled a formal request made a week earlier and in person to Odendaal on his farm to verify the presence and specifics of the Kamanjab elephant herd on Mooiplaas first-hand.

An analysis of the official MEFT documentation and statements, read together with corporate and property records for the parties involved, brought to light an altogether different picture than the official version.

Image
Copy of the original advert as run in December 2020 to solicit offers for the capture and removal of 170 wild elephants outside of Namibia’s parks. (Photo: Supplied)

For starters, the original advert for the tender (published in only the state-owned New Era newspaper in late December 2020) specified that any bidder intending to export the elephants would have to present written authorisation and CITES clearance from both exporting and importing countries in the form of a pre-permit issued by the bidder’s national conservation authority.

This appeared to be what Nghitilila had meant by his alleged CITES Article III authorisation, but which is only applicable to animals already in captivity.

This also implied that Odendaal and his secret partners would have had to obtain this CITES pre-permit from Nghitilila well in advance of the tender’s closing date of 29 January 2021. This meant that the ministry’s top officials not only knew that the elephants were going to be sold to buyers in the UAE, but actively assisted Odendaal and company to do so at the expense of government revenues in excess of R36-million.

The tender advert also made it clear that any prospective bidder needed to include a black empowerment shareholding to ensure success. At this point things got really interesting in a complicated manner, bringing to light a shadowy cabal of canned hunting interests in the UAE deal.

Shifeta’s August 2021 disclosure that one lot of 22 elephants of 42 allocated was to a foreign buyer was not even halfway true; though technically correct, it further emerged.

At MEFT’s press conference held a week before the Kamanjab herd was flown to Dubai on a Boeing 747 chartered from the Chinese-owned 360Express company, MEFT’s deputy director of scientific services, Kenneth /Uiseb, let it slip that this bid was not awarded to Odendaal’s Go Hunt Namibia safari outfitter as previously reported, but instead to Nuwebegin Boerdery CC (New Start Farming).

/Uiseb played a key supporting role in the UAE debacle: not only is he responsible for fudging Namibia’s wildly exaggerated claim of a population of 24,000 permanently resident elephants (the real figure is believed to be less than a quarter of that), but is believed to be one of three families resettled on the Lusthof farm where the Kamanjab herd was captured.

As a matter of policy, the Ministry of Lands refuses to disclose such beneficiaries, a source of much frustration for local opposition parties who claim that such privileged access to state-owned farms was key to the corruption that has crippled land reform efforts.

/Uiseb, for his part, avoided answering to this allegation, insisting that he was not the director of scientific services as averred (he is the deputy) and that the entire allegation therefore had to be rejected out of hand.

/Uiseb’s wild-eyed interjection at the 22 February press conference that the “foreign” bidder was Nuwebegin Boerdery and not Go Hunt Namibia as previously reported, was seemingly more intended to confuse than clarify questions from reporters in this regard. But it opened a fruitful line of investigation.

Nuwebegin was also not a foreign company, but was to lead to a company originally registered in South Africa in 1974, JJO Bees (Pty) Ltd, and a cattle speculator named Johannes Jacobus Christiaan Oosthuizen from Vryburg in what was then still known as the Northern Cape and now part of North West.

These family names — Johannes Jacobus Christiaan — were to emerge like a red thread among the close corporations and beneficiaries of the elephant export deal.

In 1981, Oosthuizen used JJO Bees to acquire two adjoining farms, Noordburg and Mooiplaas, situated east of Gobabis in prime cattle country close to the Botswana border, with two loans from the state-owned Land Bank, now Agribank.

Elephant boma

Mooiplaas, it should be noted, was where the elephant boma was built in preparation for the Kamanjab elephant herd being exported to the UAE.

Oosthuizen claimed his farming operations in South Africa and in the then South West Africa were operating at a loss, according to financial statements on file for JJO Bees. However, deeds office records showed that he had repaid both loans over the next 10 years.

Following Namibian independence on 21 March 1990, the Registrar of Companies in Pretoria notified Oosthuizen in 1991 that JJO Bees, as an externally registered company showing nil tax returns, was to be deregistered. The deregistration was completed in 1993 by way of an official notification in the South African Government Gazette.

Four years later, in 1997, Oosthuizen filed a Notice of Deregistration with the now-independent Namibian Registrar of Companies as well, stating that JJO Bees had no assets or liabilities and did not intend carrying on doing business in Namibia, in spite of it owning two prime farms.

This appeared to be because in the previous year (1996), Oosthuizen had set up two new close corporations — Nuwebegin Boerdery CC and Mooiplaas CC — which owned the farms Noordburg and Mooiplaas, respectively.

Crucially, both CCs recorded Noordburg as their main place of business, with Mooiplaas funded by a R1-million contribution from Oosthuizen. This was unusual, since a close corporation, as a poor man’s corporate entity, does not legally require more than a total contribution of R100, and since Oosthuizen had paid only R198,000 for the two portions that made up Mooiplaas originally.

JJO Bees’s deregistration, however, created a legal problem in the transfer of these two properties for Oosthuizen. In 1998, he tried to have JJO Bees reinstated in South Africa, according to a copy of an application to the High Court in Pretoria in JJO Bees’s company file.

Whether this application was successful is not clear — no record of the outcome or such a case being heard in Pretoria could be found. Oosthuizen would have had to show proof of tax returns for JJO Bees since 1991, and commercial matters older than two years seldom get admitted to the court roll, a Windhoek lawyer explained.

Oosthuizen appeared instead to have taken advantage of the growing communication gap between Pretoria and Windhoek: just an unsigned copy of the application appeared to be enough to satisfy the Namibian Registrar that JJO Bees was still active in South Africa.

Currently, JJO Bees is still maintained as a foreign-owned company in Namibia, even though a search of South African company records yielded no results for JJO Bees (Pty) Ltd.

Tax dodge

This appeared to have largely been a tax dodge: even though Oosthuizen had claimed to the Namibian Registrar that JJO Bees had no assets or liabilities, his 1998 Pretoria High Court application stated that the company still owned properties and farming equipment that he wanted to dispose of.

In fact, in the 45 years of its existence, JJO Bees had not once recorded a profit, records showed: its Namibian auditors, SGA (Swart Grant Angula), similarly kept filing nil returns on its behalf from 2005 to 2007. No entries were made in the file after that, though.

In effect, JJO Bees was now a ghost company: still legally registered in Namibia as a foreign-owned entity, but with its South African corporate owner having ceased to exist nearly 30 years ago.

Who JJO Bees’s beneficial owners were now was not clear: SGA’s secretarial services department claimed they had resigned as its auditors, although there is no formal notification to this effect on file.

Meanwhile, Mooiplaas CC’s ownership was amended in March 2003, reflecting JJC Oosthuizen Sr as the 51% owner, with Gerrie Odendaal and a younger brother, one Jacobus Johannes Odendaal, each holding 24%.

All of these CCs appear to have been set up by conveyancer Johannes Christiaan Gouws of Windhoek-based legal firm Quarmby, Fischer & Pfeifer, who in June 2003 also handled the sale of the farm Noordburg to Elliot and Gisela Hiskia for R1.5-million, financed by an Agribank Affirmative Loan Scheme bond of R1,530,300.

Originally, Oosthuizen had paid R145,000 for Noordburg, repaid his loan — yet reported making a loss on his farming operations from 1977 to 2007, according to the financial records submitted on his behalf.

In November 2007, Mooiplaas CC’s ownership was further amended to reflect four members, each with 25%: Gerrie Odendaal and his younger brother Rudolph Odendaal, Oosthuizen Sr’s young brother Rudolph Ludwig Oosthuizen and a Rosa Petra Bester.

All of them are South African and from North West, although Rudolph Oosthuizen — who appears to have inherited JJO Bees from his older brother — also died on 18 January 2014, according to a death certificate in the JJO Bees file.

Nuwebegin CC’s founding statement was amended on 1 June 2011 to reflect that the nature of its business was now “Livestock and game farming, hunting, guest accommodation (bed and breakfast), tour operator, tourism advisory services, letting and leasing of fixed and moveable assets, general dealer and ancillary activities”.

Nuwebegin’s business address was listed as that of auditors SGA (Swart Grant Angula) in Windhoek, who also took over as accountants of JJO Bees in 2005. SGA partner WH Boshoff also filed nil returns for the company for the 2005 to 2007 financial years.

Image
Two of the Namibian Kamanjab elephant herd calves left behind by the capture team. The original tender called for only whole families to be removed. (Photo: Supplied)

Trophy hunting business

A 7 February visit to Mooiplaas confirmed that Odendaal was operating a trophy hunting business there. He also boasted that he was “the biggest rhino breeder in Namibia”, providing trophy rhinos to the trophy hunting industry. There is, however, no general dealer on his farm; the only general dealer is on the neighbouring Noordburg farm, it was confirmed.

A chance encounter in the Noordburg General Dealer on 12 February with the Hiskia couple’s son, Elliot Jnr, a former investment manager, was to provide the final clues.

Elliot Hiskia Jnr confirmed that he took over the running of Noordburg in 2014. People were amazed that he could make a good living on the relatively small (3,000ha) farm, he said, adding that he was related through his mother to former first lady Penehupifo Pohamba.

So, was he Odendaal’s secret BEE partner? I asked him for an interview and permission to view the elephant boma on Mooiplaas from Noordburg. When he then excused himself to “go do something urgent” and left hurriedly, I realised that he was going to report our presence to the MEFT head office and Odendaal.

Subsequent events confirmed this suspicion: MEFT spokesperson Romeo Muyunda told The Namibian newspaper the next day that my arrest in Gobabis, 120km away, had been prompted by a telephonic tip-off.

Since 12 February, Odendaal has refused to answer any questions. However, the inferred connection between Elliot Hiskia and the UAE elephant deal was now clear: he appeared to have been the BEE partner to Nuwebegin’s bid for the Kamanjab elephants.

Which left only two unanswered questions: who was the second foreign buyer, and who is TimBila’s BEE partner?

Not only did this deal rob cash-strapped MEFT of R33.3-million, but two calves born subsequently on Mooiplaas were basically given away for free and another calf separated from its mother was left behind in Kamanjab, contrary to MEFT’s insistence that only whole families were to be captured. It appeared their fate was to be turned into petting zoo attractions, said Michele Pickover of the EMS Foundation.

“Elephants — because they are the biggest land-based animals — are seen by zoos as commercial drawcards and ‘cash cows’. And baby elephants on exhibition, even more so,” she said. “Some zoos — like the ones in China and the UAE — also allow interactions with elephants and this form of commercial exploitation is even more lucrative.

“For an elephant to interact with humans, they have to be ‘trained’, and they have to do this when they are very young. People do not see what this entails because it happens behind the scenes, but it is a very brutal process.

“Elephants removed and ‘broken’ by trauma and trained by fear and/or force are exceedingly capable of retaliating much, much later [against] the humans who might be interacting with them,” she wrote.

The biggest loser in all this is Namibia’s reputation as an “African conservation success story”, as the ministry and the WWF often proclaim to anyone who will listen. In hindsight, this reputation appears to be totally undeserved. DM/OBP


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Trade in live elephants from Zimbabwe & Namibia

Post by Lisbeth »

Calves and cows split up as export terms go out the window in sale of pachyderms to the United Arab Emirates

Image
Two of the Namibian Kamanjab elephant herd calves left behind by the capture team. The original tender called for only whole families to be removed. (Photo: Supplied)

By John Grobler | 30 May 2022

At least three calves of the wild-caught Kamanjab desert elephant herd in Namibia have been separated from their mothers, while the captured elephants have been sent to zoos in the United Arab Emirates.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
In spite of an official undertaking to not split up elephant “families” during their capture and export to the United Arab Emirates, at least three calves were separated from their mothers and the Kamanjab herd sent to two zoos are now split into three groups.

This is a contradiction of the original terms imposed by the December 2020 tender issued by the Namibian Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism (MEFT), which, among other requirements, specified that “Tenderers will capture the entire herd as per lot size and will not leave infants/juveniles behind in order to not disturb social group”.

Not only did the Odendaal syndicate not capture the entire 30-strong Kamanjab herd as required, but in the process separated at least three cows and their calves, it was subsequently established.

The Kamanjab herd then was split into three groups upon arrival in the United Arab Emirates, contrary to accepted elephant conservation practices to keep the pachyderms’ family structures intact.

Of the 24 elephants, including two newborn calves, sent to the Middle East, 11 each were to go to the Al Sharjah African Theme Park and the Al Ain Zoo, but only eight were reported to have arrived at the latter.

Five elephants, which appeared to include the newborns and their mothers, appear to have been sent to a private zoo believed to belong to one of the UAE sheikhs, said veteran filmmaker Karl Amman, who has been tracking the animals’ whereabouts from Dubai.

A MEFT spokesperson told reporters that the elephants had all adapted well and were feeding normally in their respective new homes. This could not be independently verified.

Image
The remains of what was a 30-strong Kamanjab herd of elephants: too many bulls and calves. (Photo: Supplied)

However, one younger female calf whose mother was left behind during the capture process outside Kamanjab in September, had been in poor condition and is suspected not to have survived the journey to a non-range country.

Deputy director of MEFT’s scientific services Kenneth /Uiseb admitted that a small group of five or six members of the Kamanjab herd had been left behind. These are three young bulls, two cows and a juvenile female, it was confirmed.

However, two young calves were subsequently found wandering around on their own for two to three weeks before they were found by the rest of the surviving herd, photographic evidence showed.

Of the thousands of elephants that roamed a century ago between the Etosha Pan and the ephemeral river systems to the west of Namibia’s largest nature park, only a handful remain, mostly in the Ugab River about 200km to the south.

The MEFT claimed previously that there were nearly 2,000 elephants left in the arid northwestern Kunene and Erongo regions, but in reality only about 10% of the original population remained, besieged on all sides by encroaching communal cattle farmers and trophy hunters.

A report late in 2021 by Dr Adam Cruise and Issy Sasada warned that this entire population was now at risk of collapse, owing to overexploitation, drought and human encroachment. DM/OBP


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Trade in live elephants from Zimbabwe & Namibia

Post by Lisbeth »

African countries nix Zimbabwe’s efforts to sell live elephants and its ivory stockpiles

Image
A herd of elephants in the Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe. (Photo: Wikimedia / Jürgen Kehrberger)

By Don Pinnock | 02 Jun 2022

Zimbabwe has failed to drum up Africa-wide support to sell live elephants and ivory. Here are some reasons why their trade would be disastrous for elephants.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
In a much-hyped conference last month to strong-arm the international wildlife trade organisation CITES into allowing the global sale of elephants and ivory, Zimbabwe last week invited 16 African countries and a range of dignitaries to join its cause.

However, only five countries signed the conference declaration and the summit failed to come up with a continent-wide consensus that could be taken to the CITES (COP19) meeting in Panama in November.

The South African delegation which attended the conference did not include Environment Minister Barabara Creecy and notably did not sign the declaration.

South Africa’s current position is that it will not seek to trade ivory while current circumstances persist. At South Africa’s pre-COP19 meeting on 25 May, no elephant or ivory related proposals were raised.

The Hwange statement demanded non-interference from CITES on domestic trade, sovereignty of states and their right to monetise local wildlife.

It criticised decisions influenced by “non-affected nations” and animal welfare organisations, and called for a review of CITES membership in the face of its “continued unscientific and unwarranted decision-making processes”.

However, should Zimbabwe or other southern African countries decide to leave CITES in order to sell their ivory, any potential consumer country would also have to leave the convention or find itself excluded from the lucrative trade in other CITES-regulated species.

Image
These two elephants were chilled and having fun in the water at Harpoor Dam in the Addo Elephant National Park. Photo: Anne Laing

The bottom line is that Zimbabwe is completely broke, has one of the lowest ratings on the global corruption index and is desperate to monetise its wildlife. It has 130 tonnes of ivory and five tonnes of rhino horn stockpiled, as well as demand from Middle Eastern and Asian countries for live baby elephants.

It was badly aggrieved by the successful lobby by the 32-member African Elephant Coalition at COP18 in 2019 that got CITES to effectively ban trade in live elephants. None of the five signatories of the Hwange summit are part of that coalition.

In a pre-conference briefing in Harare, Zimbabwe’s Environment, Climate, Tourism and Hospitality Industry Minister, Mangaliso Ndlovu, said: “We are clear that we are not going to CITES to beg them. We are going to CITES to present our strong position, a position which we are willing to defend, even if it means being outside CITES.”

Botswana has supported this position. Its director of Wildlife and National Parks, Bakang Senyatso, was reported in the Botswana Gazette (1 June 2022) as insisting that southern African countries reserve the option to opt out of CITES and revert to a willing seller, willing buyer scenario outside CITES processes.

As the dust settles in Hwange, there are a number of issues which beg further analysis.

Zimbabwe is lying about the value of its ivory

Zimbabwe’s Minister of Environment has disingenuously valued the country’s stockpile of 130 tonnes of ivory and five tonnes of rhino horn at $600-million in order to justify the sale of these body parts. This distortion of the facts has gained credibility through constant parroting by uncritical journalists.

The most recent data from criminal justice experts finds that unworked elephant ivory sells for about $92/kg on the black market in Africa, while rhino horn is currently selling for $8,683/kg.

Even if you use an optimistic wholesale ivory price of $150/kg, this would value Zimbabwe’s ivory stockpiles at only $19.5-million. That’s a mere 30th of the Zimbabwean minister’s estimate.

The ivory that China bought in 2008 at the last one-off sale for $157/kg was drip-fed by the Chinese authorities to traders at prices ranging between$800 and$1,500 a kilogram. This meant that the bulk of the profits filled Chinese government — not African — coffers and created a large illegal market which drove prices even higher.

It’s illegal to sell seized ivory

Zimbabwe and Botswana want to be allowed to sell ivory supposedly to offset the cost of storing ivory, help finance conservation and mitigate human-elephant conflict.

Elephants are on CITES’ Appendix 1 (no trade) everywhere in the world except Botswana, Namibia, Zimbabwe and South Africa, which were permitted a special exemption to list as Appendix 11 allowing limited trade in a 2008 once-off sale.

Image
A Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) ranger arranges Ivory at a burning site after offloading them from a container at the KWS headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya, 20 April 2016. EPA-EFE/DANIEL IRUNGU

However, the exception has specific limitations. According to CITES’ Appendicies 1,2 and 3 issued on 22 June 2021, revenue from any sale of ivory must be used exclusively for elephant conservation, but “seized ivory and ivory of unknown origin” is excluded and may not be sold by or to a member country.

The 2008 sales also required both seller and buyer nations to be CITES-approved and as there are currently no such nations, the only way Zimbabwe can have an ivory fire-sale is for it to resign from CITES and find another country which is not a member. However, all potential buying nations are CITES members.

Zimbabwe’s elephant numbers are questionable

To justify any exploitation strategy, you must first say you have too many of the target species and that there are so many in the reserves that they’re a danger to the parks or themselves.

As Kruger Park scientist Sam Ferreira pointed out after attending the conference, elephants don’t have passports and move over the whole southern Africa region, migrating with the rains.

They’re not “owned” by the country they’re moving through, but by themselves as a living nation.

With its economy in the doldrums, Zimbabwe desperately needs foreign exchange and makes no bones about using its wildlife to supply it.

Tourism Minister Prisca Mupfumira was quoted as saying the country has an excess of 30,000 elephants and “we are prepared to ship wild animals to any other interested countries”.

However, there has been no recent census or proper scientific analysis of the area’s elephant-carrying capacity to support this assertion.

In reality, Botswana’s elephant population, at 126,000 is “a population in decline” at the time of the last census in 2018 — a far cry from the oft-repeated claims that their numbers have “swelled”.

Selling ivory stimulates poaching

International trade in ivory has been banned since 1989, following a 10-year period in which African elephant numbers declined by 50%, from 1.3 million to 600,000.

However, in 1999 and 2008, CITES allowed “one-off sales” of stockpiled ivory, to disastrous effect.

The selling prices achieved then were $100/kg and$157/kg respectively following collusion by official Chinese and Japanese buyers.

The intention of CITES in approving the ivory sales was to undercut the black market price of poached ivory. The plan failed miserably.

Instead, the sales led to an increase in demand and in poaching.

The 2008 ivory sale was followed by a 66% increase in illegally traded ivory and a 71% increase in ivory smuggling, as well as a 30% decline in elephant numbers to 415,000 by 2016.

Japan, the other participant in the one-off sales, has continually failed to comply with CITES regulations, allowing its legal and illegal markets to function in parallel.

Responding to the Hwange Elephant Summit, 50 conservation organisations worldwide issued a statement saying that “at a time when demand for ivory is at an historic low and awareness of the need for sustained biodiversity is at an historic high, we urge the international community and policymakers to resist attempts by Zimbabwe and southern African countries to restart ivory trade”.

Killing for training

Elephants are also killed as part of guide training in Zimbabwe, which requires learner hunting guides to shoot an elephant in order to pass their guide qualification.

At the time of writing, there are several thousand trainee guides in the system. It’s believed that all the ivory from this archaic requirement is transferred to the government stockpile.

The problem of ration hunting

Feeding rangers and park staff is beyond the reach of a bankrupt government, so feeding them with high-value species like elephants creates a win-win — your staff are fed and the ivory and skins are stored for later sale.

According to reliable sources who cannot be named for their safety, Zimbabwean rangers shoot elephants (and other wildlife) inside national parks, with annual quotas higher than the surrounding trophy hunting areas.

It’s also believed that the parks and reserves are used to supply other government divisions, including the armed forces, with meat rations.

And finally…

Mangaliso Ndlovu, Zimbabwe’s Environment Minister, confessed that the Hwange Summit was smaller than Zimbabwe had hoped.

“It’s a disappointment for me, the attendance at the summit,” Ndlovu said. “It’s a comfort, though, that the countries that came have 65% of the world’s elephant population.”

The truth is that the only real solution to elephant conservation is to stop all international and local trade.

Repeating failed experiments will simply send a message that it’s acceptable to trade in ivory. Carving factories in China will re-open and demand for ivory will be stimulated.

Poachers will rub their hands in delight. DM/OBP


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
Post Reply

Return to “Elephant Management and Poaching”