Botswana’s Department of Wildlife criticises report on rhino poaching

The report cites corruption and lack of collaboration as reasons for increased poaching of endangered rhinos

(David Clode)

By Thobo Motlhoka for The Sunday Standard

Botswana’s director of the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) has described a report by the UK’s Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) condemning the government’s anti-rhino poaching efforts as ‘misguided and misinformed’.

The document ‘The Rise of Rhinoceros Poaching in Botswana’ released earlier in 2022, says Botswana has been reluctant to work with other governments and civil society to address poaching. It says allegations of corruption have further called into question Botswana’s ability to protect its rhino population from poaching and illegal trade. But DWNP director, Dr. Kabelo, Senyatso has called the document inaccurate and misleading.

“This is a misguided and misinformed position by the Environmental Investigation Agency,” Senyatso says. “Botswana’s law enforcement agencies, under the ambit of the National Anti-poaching Strategy (NAPS), have a myriad of proactive approaches, including intelligence-led strategic, operational and tactical interventions.

“As a sovereign state, we do not have to explain to EIA, a non-Botswana entity that has made no material inputs towards efforts to combat rhino poaching in Botswana, what the law enforcement strategies are.

“However, if EIA had at least enquired from the Government of Botswana on some of these interventions prior to writing the misinformed EIA submission, we may have given them the highlights.”

He says it must be noted as a fact that the EIA had not contacted the DWNP as the coordinator of the National Anti-poaching Strategy and rhino conservation in Botswana prior to writing their submission to the CITES Standing Committee which, Senyatso says, explains why they would be unaware of some of the basic facts pertaining to what is being proactively done to combat rhino poaching in Botswana.

“Moreover, even after the CITES Standing Committee meeting, the EIA has still not even bothered to engage the Department of Wildlife and National Parks to solicit for any information that could help them better understand the situation on the ground.

“It has to be noted that EIA is a UK-based NGO which has no physical presence in Botswana, nor has it made any financial or logistical investment towards assisting the Department of Wildlife and National Parks and its partners to combat rhino poaching, and thus their true interests and intents need to be established.”

For their part the EIA says corruption allegations referenced in the briefing document were identified in open-source information reported in various media outlets in Botswana, including the Sunday Standard. The organisation gave, for example, an article in the Sunday Standard newspaper dated 27 July 2020 that references claims by the Director of the Directorate of Intelligence and Security, Brigadier Peter Magosi.

“We did not make any accusations against the Department of Wildlife and National Parks in our briefing and therefore did not reach out to them for comment. In fact, the Department of Wildlife and National Parks is not mentioned in the briefing at all,” IEA says.The NGO says they also wrote in reference to the lack of a holistic and coordinated government approach by all relevant government departments mandated to play a role in preventing rhino poaching and rhino horn trafficking.

“Given the severity of the rhino poaching crisis in Botswana, we had expected Botswana to provide a detailed report for SC74 of its efforts to prevent the poaching of its rhinos and to investigate the entities responsible for the rhino poaching and rhino horn trafficking in accordance with CITES Decision 18.110 and Resolution Conf. 9.14 (Rev. CoP17) Conservation of and trade in African and Asian rhinoceroses. We were disappointed that no such report from Botswana was provided.”

Botswana’s DWNP Director Senyatso has also dismissed accusations that Botswana has been reluctant to work with other governments and civil society to address poaching.

“Botswana works exceptionally well with its immediate neighbors within the ambits of SADC, as well as at site-level through platforms such as provided by the Kavango Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (KAZA TFCA).

“Specifically for the KAZA TFCA processes, civil society participation is facilitated through a myriad of formal and informal platforms, including specialist Working Groups. Consequently, the claims that we are reluctant to work with others are baseless and unfounded.”

On the issue of corruption and ability to protect rhinos, Senyatso says as the DWNP they are unaware of any cases under investigations or in court, pertaining to corrupt practices linked to rhino poaching. He says Botswana has authorities to whom suspected corrupt individuals can be reported, and so rather than make “baseless” claims, EIA should have approached the relevant agencies to report any individuals whom they know or suspect to be involved in corruption linked to rhino poaching.

The EIA document also claims that none of the actions taken by Botswana have effectively addressed the root causes of the rhino poaching problem, being organized crime and corruption. It says it is unclear what, if any, joint intelligence-led investigations Botswana has undertaken to dismantle the poaching and rhino horn trafficking syndicates responsible for the destruction of the Okavango Delta’s rhino population.

“Botswana’s law enforcement agencies do not owe EIA or any foreign-based NGO any explanation or update on any planned, ongoing or completed joint intelligence-led investigations relating to rhino horn trafficking,” DWNP Director says.

“Instead, the key law enforcement agencies leading on the implementation of the National Anti-poaching Strategy, namely the Department of Wildlife and National Parks, the Botswana Police Service, Directorate on Intelligence and Security and Botswana Defense Force, report to appropriate Botswana authorities.”

This article is reproduced here as part of the African Conservation Journalism Programme, funded in Angola, Botswana, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe by USAID’s VukaNow: Activity. Implemented by the international conservation organization Space for Giants, it aims to expand the reach of conservation and environmental journalism in Africa, and bring more African voices into the international conservation debate. Read the original story here.