coetzee trevor_compliance
TRANSCRIPT
Module 4
Conservation Compliance
Trevor John Coetzee
212262114
WIL station: Addo Elephant National Park
P.O.BOX 52
Addo
6105
Tel: 042 233 8600
Author Email: [email protected]
Cell: 0743235797
Mentors: Ilse Welgemoed (Darlington Dam section)
Solomon Lefoka (Main Camp section)
Date of Submission: 21st of October 2015
2
Table of contents Page no.
1. INTRODUCTION 4
2. INVESTIGATION & INFORMATION GATHERING 4
2.1 Fence theft at Main Camp of Addo Elephant National Park 4
3. PERMIT AND PERMIT COMPLIANCE 5
3.1 Gate duty at the Main Camp of AENP 5
3.2 Permit compliance at the Darlington Dam Section 7
4. PATROLS AND PATROL MANAGEMENT 8
4.1 Preparing patrol roster and weekly plan 9
4.2 Vehicle Patrol: Hunted animal that got trapped in Park boundary fence 10
4.3 Foot patrol: Snare traps found inside the game area of Main Camp 11
5. INSPECTIONS 12
5.1 Background 12
5.2 Darlington Alien Fish Harvesting Project (DAFHP) vehicle authorisation 13
5.3 Darlington Alien Fish Harvesting Project (DAFHP) infield inspection 14
5.4 Infield inspection at alien vegetation site 15
5.5 Final inspection of Soil erosion monitoring site 16
6. ELECTIVES 17
6.1 LEGAL & ILLEGAL TRADE I FLORA AND FAUNA; ANTI-POACHING 17
6.1.1 Legal trade of Fauna: Buffalo Auction 17
6.1.2 The Illegal trade in Flora: Cycad poaching incident 18
6.1.3 Observation Post for anti-cycad poaching 19
6.1.4 Full Moon Anti-poaching patrols in the Darlington section 21
6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESMENT 22
3
6.2.1 Environmental Impact Assessment of the Southern Cross Farming (PTY) Ltd 22
6.3 VISITOR HEALTH AND SAFETY/ SECURITY/ RISK MANAGEMENT 23
6.3.1 Risk Assessment for Darlington Dam section consolidation 23
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 26
8. REFERENCES 27
9. APPENDICES 28
4
1. INTRODUCTION
The author was placed at Addo Elephant National Park (AENP) for his Work Integrated Learning (WIL) year in 2015. The
park was proclaimed in 1931 after a public outcry to protect the Eastern Cape’s last 11 African elephants (Loxodonta
Africana) (SANPARKS 2008). The park currently covers approximately 178, 918 ha of which 124, 925 ha are declared while
46, 932 ha are in the process of being declared, and 7, 022 ha are declared as Marine Protected Area (MPA) (Appendix 1)
(SANPARKS 2015). As a result of the exponential growth in size, the park now encompasses five of South Africa’s nine
biomes namely the Albany Thicket in the original Addo Main Camp section (also in the Kabouga, Colchester, Nyathi
Section), Fynbos in the Zuurberg section, Forest and the Indian Ocean Coastal Belt on the seaward of the Woody Cape
section and the Nama Karoo in the Darlington dam section (SANPARKS 2015). These different sections of the park are
managed in compliance with the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act of 2003 (Act No. 57 of 2003)
and also within the framework of the South African National Parks (SANParks) mandate underpinned by Section 24(b) of
the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act of 1996 (Act No. 108 of 1996) (SANPARKS 2013)
2. INVESTIGATION AND INFORMATION GATHERING
2.1 Fence theft at Main Camp of Addo Elephant National Park
Background
The theft of fence is an offence that poses a big risk to the conservation of Addo Elephant National park’s (AENP) natural
resources. An incident of fence theft was reported on the 1st of February 2015 because a part of the western boundary of
the Main Camp of AENP were stolen. A case of theft was opened under the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (Act No. 51
of 1977) Amendment Act 86 of 1996 (Appendix 2).
Details
On the late afternoon of the 1st of February 2015 three Rangers came across an opening in the fence while doing fence
patrol. The opening was found at the western boundary of the Main Camp called Potgieter. The Rangers informed the
Senior Section Ranger on the 1st of February 2015, but actions could only be taken the next day because of the lack of
transport to investigate the matter.
Action
The author was asked on the 2nd of February to transport the Rangers with the Senior Section Ranger Solomon Lefoka’s
personal vehicle to the site where the fence opening was found. The value of the lost fence was investigated and a case of
theft was opened at the police station. The author was asked to take photos of the fence opening and to measure the
dimensions that were missing. The author also took the initiative to take the reading of the electric wire that was still
present. The readings showed 0.0 which meant the electric current was also disconnected. A total length of 25 metres of
fence was missing from the fence line with a height of one metre. The Police officer asked the details of the Rangers that
first found the fence opening and recorded all the details of the incident. The Police officer also asked for the value of
missing fence and according to the Sergeant Ranger the value was confirmed by the suppliers to be R875, 00.00.
5
Figure 1 The site where the fence was stolen (Photo: Mnyamana)
Outcomes
The Police officer gave the author a document with the case reference number 10/2/2015. The author transported the
Rangers back to the main camp to report back to Senior Section Ranger and handed over the case reference document.
No arrest have been made up until the submission of this document and the case is still open for investigation.
Recommendations
The author recommended that action should be taken sooner if such an incident occurs again.
3. Permit and Permit Compliance
3.1 Gate duty at the Main Camp of AENP
Background
The Main Camp of Addo Elephant National Park (AENP) consist of a north and southern gate where permits are issued to
visitors that access the park. There is also a check point between the game area and the rest camp in the north of the Main
Camp. The author did gate duty at the check point (also known as Gate 2) on a weekly basis. The reason for doing gate
duty was to do check if the visitor permits were valid for the day of entering the game area (Appendix 3). The main objective
for the exercise was to ensure effective compliance of vehicles that access the game area by identifying suspicious vehicles
that could be linked to any criminal activity. The exercise was carried out in compliance with the National Environmental
Management Protected Areas Act of 2003 (Act No. 57 of 2003) Section 52. The other reason for the check point was the
result of a national road that pass through the centre of the Main Camp that links the R335 road with the N10 National Road
(Appendix 4). Unfortunately there were incidences where road users digressed from the route and accessed the game area
without paying and eventually tried to exit through the rest camps in the north or south. Other incidences included overnight
visitors that used expired permits to access the game area.
6
Details
On the 21st of January 2015 the author was assigned to gate duty at the check point. At 10:30 am the author received a call
on the communication radio to be on the lookout for a vehicle that entered the park at the Public road entrance and entered
the game area without a permit. The author was asked to follow the protocol of non-compliant vehicles. The description of
the vehicle as transmitted over the radio was a white Toyota Avanza with registration number: HMM 683 EC with four
passengers.
Action
The protocol was to observe every vehicle with detail that passed through the checkpoint that fit the description of the
suspect vehicle. The author was required to verify valid permits by confirming the relevant date, number of passengers and
stamp of AENP on the permit. The author was instructed to call Senior Section Ranger Solomon Lefoka as soon as the
suspect vehicle was located at the check point.
Figure 2 Author confirming the validity of a game area permit (Photo: Mnyamana)
Outcome
At 15:29 pm the vehicle arrived at the checkpoint with four passengers including the driver. The author followed protocol
and politely asked the suspects to remain at the checkpoint until the Senior Section Ranger arrived. The suspects were
issued an admission of guilt fine by the Senior Section Ranger and were also asked to leave the premises immediately after
observation confirmed that the suspects was under the influence and was in possession of liquor. The Senior Section
Ranger was the only employee on duty that was authorised to issue an admission of guilt fine in terms of terms of section
56(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977 (Act No. 51 of 1977).
7
Comments and recommendations
The incident was handled in accordance to the standard operating procedure and the Environmental Management
Inspectorate (EMI) guidelines of the admission of guilt fine. The author recommended that a stop sign should be posted at
the check point because visitors often did not stop to allow a permit confirmation.
3.2 Permit compliance at the Darlington Dam Section
Background
The Darlington Dam Section of AENP was most popular for recreational fishing amongst residents from the Ekwesi
municipality. Angling competitions were organised by The East Cape Bank Anglers Association (ECBAA) and the Eastern
Cape Light tackle Boat Angling Association (ECLTBAA) and approved by the Conservation Department of AENP in
compliance with the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act of 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004). Therefore it was
also important for the Field Rangers of AENP Darlington Dam Section to monitor visitor access and activities in compliance
with the Section 52 of the National Environment: Protected Areas Act of 2003 (Act No. 57 of 2003). The author was
assigned issue permits at least one weekend per month at the Darlington Dam.
Details
On the 28th of March the author and Ranger Francis Olifant conducted a permit inspection at the Darlington Dam. The
Rangers came upon an adult male visitor with his wife and two children who claimed the he did not know about entrance fee
and stressed that he will not pay the amount of R54.00 per adult and R27.00 for his child. If the family wanted to camp
overnight then they had to pay an additional fee of R55.00 per adult and R27.00 per child below the age of 12 years old.
The overnight camping permit had a different format as the daily permit as it required more details of the visitor (Appendix
5). It was also compulsory for the visitors to complete an indemnity form as agreement that they enter the National Park at
own risk as it was a wild life environment.
Action
The Rangers emphasised that he should either pay the fee or kindly vacate the premises (Fig 3).
Figure 3 The author issuing a visitor permit (Photo: Olifant)
8
Outcome
The visitor agreed to pay the amount for his wife and two children and completed the necessary documents for their visit.
Figure 4 Permits that the author issued over a three month period.
The author issued 140 day permits and 101 camping permits between February and April on his weekend shift at the
AENP’s Darlington Dam section.
Comments
The incident was handled in compliance with the standard operating procedure of the Section 52 within the National
Environment Protected Areas Act of 2003 (Act No. 57 of 2003) as amended, together with any Regulations and Internal
Rules made in terms of this act.
4. Patrols and Patrol Management
Table 1 In addition to the reports to follow, the author participated in the following types of patrols during his service period
at AENP.
Section and Service
Period
Types of patrols Area covered Times patrolled
Darlington Dam
Section
( between 14
February and 31
June 2015)
Full moon/
Vehicle patrols
Buffer zone/R400 public
road
Night/weekly/irregular times
Vehicle patrols Inside fence line Daily/ irregular times
All-Terrain Vehicle
(ATV)
Off road terrain/ central zone
of Section
Daily/ irregular times
Foot patrols Zuurberg Mountain boundary Weekly/ irregular times
Observation post Lookout point over
Darlington Section
Weekly / irregular times
9
Nyathi Section
( between 01 June
and
Foot patrols Fence line
( Eastern fence line)
Weekly/ irregular times
Vehicle patrols Central Zone Weekly/ irregular times
Addo Main Camp
(between 01 June
and
Foot patrols Fence line (western fence
line)
Daily/ irregular times
Foot patrol Colchester central zone to
western boundary zone
Daily/ irregular times
4.1 Preparing patrol roster and weekly plan
Background
Patrols and patrol management is a necessity for a National Park as it increase visibility to protect the park’s natural
resources, assets and infrastructure (SANPARKS 2008; pers. obs. 2015). At Addo Elephant National Park (AENP) patrols
and patrol management are done differently in each section of the park depending on the terrain and resources available
(pers. obs. 2015). The patrols were done under compliance of the National Environmental Management Protected Areas
Act of 2004 (Act No. 31 of 2004). The author shared the responsibility of preparing the patrol roster and reporting a weekly
plan which included vehicle patrols (including an all-terrain vehicle), foot patrols and observations post schedules during his
service period at the Darlington Dam Section of AENP.
Details
The Senior Section Ranger of the Darlington Dam Section went on holiday from the 6th of May till the 7th of June 2015. The
author was given the responsibility to compile the weekly planner (Appendix 6) which included a planned patrol routine of
the Rangers as well as a situation report (SITrep) (Appendix 7) of any poaching activity that occurred in the week before the
report had to be submitted. It was the author’s duty to email both reports before 12:00pm every Monday. All the patrols
were executed at irregular times to prevent any obvious routine patterns by possible poachers that may observe the area.
Action
The author compiled both reports every Monday morning after the weekly meeting with the Rangers under the Sergeant’s
supervision. The author then emailed both reports to the Conservation Manager John Adendorff.
Outcome
All the observations that was done during the weekly patrols was extracted from the Ranger’s pocket books and compiled
into the Ranger’s diary every weekend. The Sergeant then scrutinized the information to identify any suspicious
observations or areas that might need to be patrolled more regularly. However the Rangers had a standard operating
procedure (SOP) to report any direct threat or suspicion directly to the Sergeant.
10
Comments
The author experienced challenges to email the reports on time before 12:00 pm every Monday. The reason was that the
weekly meeting took place in an area where there was no internet signal. The author could also not submit the report prior
to the meeting because the Rangers exchanged important information that determined how patrols were planned for the
week ahead. Therefore the author compiled the report where the meeting took place and then drove a 15 kilometre distance
to the Darlington Alien Fish Harvesting Project (DAFHP) office to email the reports on time before 12pm every Monday.
4.2 Vehicle Patrol: Hunted animal that got trapped in Park boundary fence
Background
There are numerous Game Hunting Farms neighbouring the Boundaries of Addo Elephant National Park (AENP) and all
hunters should comply with the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004). Effective
compliance and monitoring are to done by AENP Rangers in terms of the National Environmental Management: Protected
Areas Act 57 of 2003 to ensure no illegal hunting takes place within the Park’s boundaries.
Details
On 12 June 2015, 04:23pm the author and a Field Ranger A. Martin were doing a vehicle patrol along the R400 buffer zone
of the Darlington Dam Section of AENP. The Field Ranger and the author heard to gunshots coming from the east and
decided to investigate by driving further east as the Field Ranger loaded his R1 rifle in case of danger. As the author was
driving, the Field Ranger was on the lookout and discovered a blood trail across the road and asked the author to stop the
field vehicle (Fig 5 A). The author and Field Ranger traced the blood trail across the road along the parks boundary fence.
As the team drove further they discovered a male Kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros) trapped inside the park’s boundary
fence and stopped the vehicle to investigate the matter further. At 16:50 pm the neighbouring farmer Vaatjie Nel and two
adult males, ages between 21 and 30 years old approached the scene on foot. They confirmed that have valid hunting
perits and they shot the Kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros) on the farmland adjacent the R400 road and saw it ran across the
R400 into the fence of Addo Elephant National Park.
Action
The author explained the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to the hunters which is not to touch or attempted to move
the animal until the Sergeant Ranger arrived (Fig 5B). The author called the Sergeant over the Communication Radio and
on his arrival he investigated the matter further by confirming which direction the blood trail came from. After two hours of
securing the scene the author and his colleague was then relieved from the scene by the Sergeant to continue with ant-
poaching patrols.
11
Figure 5 A Blood trial across R 400 B Hunted Kudu trapped inside park’s boundary (Photos: Author)
Outcome
The Sergeant confirmed that the blood trail came from the farm side across the road because the smaller blood splashes
were all in the direction of the Park fence side (Kula pers. comm. 2015). Larger blood spill patches were found along the
fence line of AENP which indicated that the animal could have ran slower and eventually collided with the fence of AENP
(Kula pers. comm. 2015). The Sergeant and his team removed the animal and handed it over to the Hunters.
Comments
The author felt that the situation was handled according to the SOP of SANParks. Securing the scene of the incident also
remained top priority until the Sergeant (EMI official arrived although the author was not an authorised Environmental
Management Inspectorate (EMI) official. However the author felt that there were still not clarity on the law of these type of
incidents were hunting would take place in buffer zone of a Protected Area and the regulations there of.
4.3 Foot patrol: Snare traps found inside the game area of Main Camp
Background
At Addo Elephant National Park (AENP) snare traps have been reported on foot patrols and further investigation was
required (6 A).
Details
On the 15th of July the author, an Environmental Monitor and Field Ranger were requested to stealthily patrol the Colchester
Section’s western boundary of about a 5 km radius. The objective was to look for suspicious spoors and snares set by
poachers and possibly catch the offenders.
A B
12
Action
The team was given possession of one R1 rifle which was carried by the E.M. The team were then dropped off by the
Sergeant Ranger at an unnoticeable location from where they patrolled the area on foot through the thicket vegetation. The
team separated to cover more of the area at ones but kept visual contact by using hand signals.
Outcome
After an hour of patrol one of the Field Rangers found a snare attached to tree branches. The author found another snare
attached to the skeleton of a male kudu. (Fig 6 B). The author took photos of the scene and wrote all the particulars of the
observation into his pocket book. Unfortunately no arrests have been made up until the time of this portfolio’s write up.
Figure 6 A Snares found over three months B Author observing snare around horns of Kudu skeleton (Photos:
Mnyamana)
Comments
An observation post was set up in the area to detect any poaching activities. Since the increase of foot patrols and
observation posts, no further snares were found in the area and no detection of suspicious spoors were found.
5. INSPECTIONS
5.1 Background
South African National Park (SANParks) has a component called Biodiversity and Social Projects (BSP) which was
implemented by the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) to manage the Extended Public Works Programme (EPWP)
(SANPARKS 2008). The EPWP consists of various projects such as alien plant clearing (Working for Water), alien fish
clearing, indigenous vegetation restoration, soil erosion rehabilitation (Working for Land) and environmental monitoring
(SANPARKS 2008). All the EPWP projects within the boundaries and buffer zone of Addo Elephant National Park was done
within the framework of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity (NEMBA) Act (Act 10 of 2004). At the
A B
13
Darlington Dam Section of AENP there were 7 EPWP teams which were operating under the management of BSP projects
to implement conservation goals in terms of the NEMBA Act No 10 of 2004. Each team was under the employment of a
contractor who was selected & endorsed by a properly constituted Project Advisory Committee in terms of the basic
conditions of the EMPLOYMENT ACT, 1997 Section 87 (1), (2) and also in guidance of the Employment Equity Act, No. 55
Of 1998.
5.2 Darlington Alien Fish Harvesting Project (DAFHP) vehicle authorisation
Background
The Darlington Dam is located in the northern Section of AENP. An EPWP project named the Darlington Alien Fish
Harvesting Project (DAFHP) was initiated to control the invasive alien fish Barbel (Clarias gariepinus) population in the
Dam. The species was mainly controlled because it competed against the indigenous fish population such as the Long fin
eel (Anguilla mossambica) for resources. The project was operating under the NEMBA: Biodiversity ACT 2004 (ACT NO. 10
OF 2004) listing of 1a: requiring compulsory control. The Author’s key responsibilities during his service period at the
DAFHP was to conduct a vehicle authorisation to check if Contractors’ vehicles complies with the standards of the EPWP
operations.
Details
On the 11th May the author conducted a vehicle authorisation inspection on the vehicle of the DAFHP Contractor Frederick
Afrika, contract code: SOOP 104400040. The author discovered that the driver’s Professional Driving Permit (PrDP) has
expired on the 28th of April 2015 in terms of the National Road Traffic Act, 1996 (ACT No. 93 OF 1996).
Actions
The author followed the standard operating procedure (SOP) to disapprove the trip authority until the PrDP was renewed.
The author also noted the details of the incident in the Contractor’s SANParks- Invasive Species Control Unit Site book
(ISCU) (Appendix 8).
Outcome
On the 18th May the driver was in possession of a temporary PrDP. However the author was not sure whether the driver
was allowed on site with the temporary document. The author followed the SOP and contacted the Assistant Cluster
Manager (ACM): Roland Carolus for his advice. The ACM approved the access of the driver on site based on the fact that
the driver did put effort in obtaining a temporary PrDP.
Comments
The contractor refused to sign the SANParks-ISCU Book but the author was informed to continue with the SOP. The author
scanned and emailed a copy of the incident noted in the SANParks-ISCU Book to the Project Manager: Lauren Nel to be
attached to the DAFHP monthly report.
14
5.3 Darlington Alien Fish Harvesting Project (DAFHP) infield inspection
Background
The Darlington Alien Fish Harvesting operations were done within the boundary of Addo Elephant National Park (AENP) at
the Darlington Dam under the NEMBA: Biodiversity ACT 2004 (ACT NO. 10 OF 2004). The alien fish were harvested using
the long-line method and transported in crates with a small motorised boat to shore where it was then offloaded. A vehicle
then transported the fish to a small fish factory also within the Park’s boundary where it was processed and packaged for
sales. The author was responsible to oversee that all the daily operations had to comply with the National Environmental
Management: Biodiversity Act No 10 of 2004 listing of 1 (a) and the Occupational Health and Safety ACT 1993 (ACT
NO.181 Of 1993) Amendment (ACT. No.181 of 1993).
Details
On the 23rd of February 2015 the author conducted an infield inspection at the DAFHP contractor’s boat launch site at the
Darlington dam (Appendix 9). The author discovered that the boat was anchored in the water at the launch site as opposed
to be parked on a trailer at the nearby lodge. The author then continued to inspect the boat according to the health and
safety checklist provided and discovered that the fire extinguisher’s service date has also expired. The author also found
that the boat was not cleaned properly in relation to the health and safety standards for harvesting fish. The author then
proceeded and saw that the medical kit was also incomplete.
Action
The author seized the harvesting operation for the day until the Contractor had complied with the standards of the Health
and Safety (H&S) Checklist. The author made comments on the Health and Safety checklist and instructed the contractor to
rectify all standards of health and safety before the harvesting operation could continue. The author also warned the
contractor of leaving the boat anchored on the shoreline of dam as opposed to transporting it on the trailer to the nearby
building.
Outcome
On the 24th of February 2015 the author inspected the site again and found that the Contractor rectified all entities on the
H&S checklist to be able to continue with the daily operations. The author also saw that the boat was parked at the
allocated parking bay of the nearby lodge as part of the safety procedures of the harvesting project.
Comments
The Contractor complied after the author explained to him the safety hazard if the boat was left in the dam as unnoticed
damaged of the boat could jeopardize the safety of the workers in the future.
15
5.4 Infield inspection at alien vegetation site
Background
Addo elephant National Park (AENP) in conjunction with Biodiversity and Social Projects (BSP) have a mandate to control
the distribution of invasive alien trees in compliance with the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act No 10 of
2004 and also with guidance of the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act 43 of 1983 Section 6 (2) (i). The author was
on several times responsible to conduct infield inspections at the northern riparian zone of the Darlington Dam to confirm if
the contractors were compliant to the terms of their contract.
Details
On the 19th of June 2016 the author was instructed to conduct infield inspections at two Alien tree Tamarisk (Tamarix
chinensis) control sites which were located next to each other. The author specifically observed for any environmental
hazardous risks, Health and safety working standards and production rate.
Action
The author’s first observation was the confirmation of the First Aid, Health & Safety and fire fighting representatives on site
with the appropriate contract and other relevant documentation. The author also inspected if the work method was up to
standard in terms of the descriptions of their contract. All the details of the inspection was written in the SANParks-ISCU
Book by the author (Appendix 10).
Outcome
The author found that the safety representatives of both sites were present. The author also discovered that all the
hazardous chemicals and tools were kept at a clearly marked area away from the work site. However the author discovered
that the work was not up to standard in the terms of the contract conditions. The reason was that some of the stumps of the
alien trees were not slashed below foot ankle height as the prescribed method for the contract. The site was still in
operation therefore the author did not issue the contractor a fine but made recommendations to cut the stumps of the trees
at the correct specifications in terms of the contract.
Comments
Apart from the contractors that were not up to standard with cutting height of the stumps, the contractors were compliant to
the author’s recommendations and comments.
16
5.5 Final inspection of Soil erosion monitoring site
Background
There were numerous Soil Erosion Control sites in a rehabilitation process at the Darlington Dam Section of AENP during
the author’s service at the Section. All the sites were managed by BSP. However a SANParks’ Ranger was responsible to
conduct the final inspections of all sites to prevent any bias decisions if done by officials that were monitoring the site. All
final inspections was done in compliance with the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act of 2004 (ACT No
10 of 2004)
Details
On the 14th of April 2015 the author was asked to conduct a final inspection at a soil erosion rehabilitation site. The plot was
about 20 hectares in size and one Contractor and his team was preparing the area for rehabilitation with the hollow
treatment.
Action
The author firstly inspected whether the correct method of rehabilitation was applied at the site and then looked if the
method was done on standard and terms of the contractual agreement of the Working for Land policy. The author also
inspected if the full size of the site was prepared for the rehabilitation process. However all the hollows was not filled with
sweet thorn (Acacia karroo) branches due miscommunication between the Section Ranger and the Contractor on where
she may collect the branches to fill the hollows. Normally the Contractor would use mulch to fill the hollows, but they ran out
of the material. The Contractor was given permission to prune trees as additional material to fill the hollows but only at
areas where the SSR approved to harvest the branches. The Contractor was given one week to fill the hollows which the
author commented in the SANParks-ISCU Book (Appendix 11).
Figure 7 The author conducting a final inspection at soil erosion site (Photo: Jansen)
17
Outcome
The author approved the site on the 21st of April 2015 after the Contractor filled the hollows with Acacia sp. branches. The
author found that the full site was done on standard in terms of the specifications of the contract (Appendix 12).
Comments
The author was satisfied with the procedure and reported all the details of the final inspection to the Senior Section Ranger.
6. ELECTIVES
6.1 LEGAL & ILLEGAL TRADE I FLORA AND FAUNA; ANTI-POACHING
6.1.1 Legal trade of Fauna: Buffalo Auction
Background
The Absa Kirkwood Wildsfees is an annual auction festival which is organized by the Kirkwood municipality. Addo Elephant
National Park (AENP) are founding supporters of the event and also uses it as a platform for marketing auctioning of
disease-free African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) and other game. Addo Elephant National Park’s (AENP) complies with the
SANParks Wildlife Management Policy which comprise of the sustainable harvesting of wild animals to improve generating
income (SANPARKS 2006). In terms of Section 55(2) (b) of the National Environmental Management Protected Areas Act
(Act 57 of 2003), South African National Parks, is mandated to sell, exchange or donate any animal, plant or other organism
occurring in a park, or purchase, exchange or otherwise acquire any indigenous species which it may consider desirable to
reintroduce in a specific park (SANPARKS 2015).
Details
On the 26th of June 2015 AENP auctioned and sold 33 African Buffalo at the annual Absa Kirkwood Wildsfees (Lefoka
pers. comm. 2015). The 33 buffalo was sold at a total value of R7.6 million and all byers were obliged to comply with the
provisions of the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004) chapter 7 as well as the Animal
Disease Act (Act 35 of 1984) and all applicable provincial legislation (SANPARKS 2015).
Actions
The game buffalo (Syncerus caffer) was sold by displaying description photograph of each animal on a projected screen at
the Game auction of the Absa Kirkwood Wildsfees (Fig. 8). The owner was also allowed to view the buffalo at the bomas of
AENP by appointment with the Conservation Manager John Adendorff. After the auction and selling of the buffalo the buyer
was only allowed to load and translocate the animal with possession of a Game translocation permit (Appendix 13). The
buffalo was immobilized with a dart gun by the Veterinarian before it was removed from the bomas onto the vehicle’s trailer
of the buyer. The author assisted with the physical carrying of the sold buffalo on stretcher from the boma to the trailer of
the buyer.
18
Figure 8 Description of a buffalo (Syncerus caffer) on sale (Photo: Author)
Outcome
Table 2 Details of the buffalo sold at the auction of the Absa Kirkwood Wildsfees.
Date Species Sex Amount Price
26th June 2015 African Buffalo
Syncerus caffer
Bull 11 R1.8 million
26th June 2015 African Buffalo
Syncerus caffer
cow 22 R5.8 million
total 33 R7.6 million
The highest price paid for a buffalo was R750, 000.00 and with a horn size of 45 inches and the lowest price paid was R52,
000.00. Both sales were bulls and the successful byer of each buffalo was responsible for obtaining all the required
NEMBA, TOPS, CITES, transport, export, import, transit and veterinary permits and other requirements prescribed by the
different nature conservation authorities of the provinces, veterinary authorities and importing countries as per applicable
(SANPARKS 2015).
Comments
The buffalo sales was done in compliance with the terms and conditions of the law that was applicable to the procedure of
every buffalo that were sold. In that respect the author has no recommendations on the procedure of the buffalo auction.
6.1.2 The Illegal trade in Flora: Cycad poaching incident on the slopes of the Klein Winterhoek Mountain
Background
Addo Elephant National Park conserves several Encephalartos spp. which occurs in the various biomes within the park’s
boundaries as well as the buffer zone (Lefoka pers. comm. 2015). The cycad species currently listed in Appendix 1 of the
Threatened or Protected Species (TOPS) in terms of the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act (Act no 10 of
2004). Unfortunately the buffer zone which is also known as the Greater Addo Elephant National Park (GAENP), came
under tremendous poaching pressure over the last few years (Lefoka pers. comm. 2015). The targeted cycads species
19
were mainly the Encephalartos lehmannii and Encephalartos longifolius species which occurs on the slopes of the Klein
Winterhoek Mountains south from the Darlington Dam Section.
Details
On the 23rd of February 2015 the farm owner Robert Biggs was arrested in connection with a R2 million endangered cycad
bust by the Green Scorpions (Pillay 2015). The 52 year old Biggs was held into custody for allegedly uprooting cycads on
his property without a permit. This followed after the Green scorpions received a tip-off a week ago of a suspicious truck
that was on the R75 road underway to the Jansenville district. The truck was located in Jansenville town during a sting
operation on the evening of the 15th of February 2015 with 44 cycads onboard (Pillay 2015).The suspects were identified as
Jan van Staden (59), Honest Chipanga (25), Sonodo Ndlovu (39) and Admire Marima (23). The suspects appeared in the
Jansenville District Municipal court (Pillay 2015).
Action
The AENP staff replanted the 44 cycads at their Zuurberg section after it were seized from the truck in Jansenville. An aerial
census over the Klein Winterhoek Mountains revealed that a further 51 Encephalartos spp. were uprooted and left behind
on the slope of the mountain. The author was given a task by his Senior Section Ranger to go to the Klein Winter Hoek
Mountain from the 16th to 20th March 2015 to insert microchips into the remaining uprooted trees and to record the GPS
locations of the trees on a cyber-tracker device. An Environmental Monitor also assisted the author by setting up an
observation point and monitor any suspicious activity in the area. A contracted team was responsible to replant the trees
during the week that the author was deployed to the mountain.
Outcome
Jan Van Staden pleaded guilty in a court appearance and were given a three year suspended jail sentence after supplying
information to the Green Scorpions that lead to Robert Biggs and his farm. The case was postponed till October 2015 to
investigate the allegations about Robert Biggs’s involvement in the Cycad case. (Pillay 2015).
Comments
The author felt that the farmer’s penalty was not sufficient enough in comparison to the damage and disturbance that he
caused to the significant Encephalartos spp.
6.1.3 Observation Post for anti-cycad poaching
Background
The Rangers of the Darlington Dam Section showed great commitment in protecting the Encephalartos spp. within the
boundary and buffer zone of AENP (pers. obs. 2015). Their commitment was strengthened with the understanding of the
compliance protocol related to the National Environmental Management Protected Areas (NEMPA) Act (Act 31 of 2004). In
that respect Rangers set up observation posts on regular and irregular times on the boundary slopes of the Zuurberg
Mountain and Klein Winterhoek Mountain.
20
Details
On the 14th of February 2015 the author and Environmental Monitor (EM) Mcebisi Tornaat were requested to set up an
Observation Post (OP) on the slopes of the Zuurberg Mountain. The purpose of the assignment was to observe and identify
any suspicious activity along the Bedrogsfontein 4x4 route that runs from the Kabouga section over the Zuurberg Mountain
to the Darlington Dam section. This followed after the Darlington dam Senior Section Ranger (SSR) received an alert from
the SSR of the Kabouga Section about a suspicious white Toyota Land cruiser with canopy and registration number DJR
878 EC was on its way from Kabouga on the 4x4 route. The SSR estimated the time of arrival (ETA) to the author’s location
at 4hours and 30 minutes. Thus the author and his partner had enough time to set up an OP and remain undetected. The
team was equipped with a scope binoculars, a hand held radio and a R1 assault rifle which was handled by the EM. The
suspects were believed to be one white male (driving) and two black men, believed to be foreigners. Another team (B) of
rangers was standing by five kilometres from the author and his partner on the 4x4 route, ready to do a routine search.
Action
The author and his partner was transported to the slopes of the mountain by team B, from where they hiked up for 30 mins
and at 09:30 am they arrived at the OP. The team confirmed their position with team B who remained on stand-by at their
time of arrival. The author and his partner verified the vehicle’s visual at 12:30 pm and confirmed the ETA of the suspects
to the location of team B in about 15 minutes. The suspects’ vehicle was stopped at their arrival and a routine search was
conducted in compliance with section 52 of the NEMPA Act of 2004.
Outcome
It was confirmed that no illegal possessions were found and their permit for the 4x4 road was valid. However a pick-axe and
two shovels were found in the loading bin of the vehicle, which justified the suspicion because the driver suspect was
believed to have a record in cycad poaching. The team B unfortunately had to let the suspects go but the author and his
partner were asked to keep a visual on the suspects from their OP (Fig. 9). The anti-poaching camping trailer and the ATV
(all-terrain vehicle) were then taken to team B’s position where the author and his partner stayed the night to observe any
other activity.
Figure 9 Author at the observation post (Photo: Toornaat)
21
Comments
The author felt that he received the best observation protocol experience during his service period at the Darlington Dam
Section. The author also felt that the protocol was up to standard and the teams did their jobs professionally at all times.
Although no suspects were arrested, the author felt that a crime was prevented due to the rapid response of the two teams
at the Darlington Dam Section of AENP.
6.1.4 Full Moon Anti-poaching patrols in the Darlington section
Background
The author took part in different anti-poaching patrols during his service period at the Darlington Dam Section of AENP in
compliance with the National Environment Management Protected Areas Act of 2003 (Act NO 57 of 2003). Full-moon
patrols were important particularly during hunting season in the Eastern Cape which stretches from 31st of May to 30th of
August according to the proclamation of the Eastern Cape Nature and Environmental Conservation Ordinance, 1974
(Ordinance No 19 of 1974) Section 78-79 and must also comply with the National Environmental Management Biodiversity
Act (Act 10 of 2004).
Details
On the 4th of March 2015 the author assisted Sergeant Solomon Kula on a vehicle patrol. The Sergeant picked up the
author at 20:30 pm at the Darlington Alien Fish Harvesting Project (DAFHP) premises where the author stayed at the time.
According to Sergeant Kula the poachers see the full-moon as a natural light advantage at night when attempting a
poaching activity (Kula pers. comm. 2015). There were also a team at an observation post (OP) in the central zone of the
Darlington dam section. The author and Sergeant’s objective was to patrol the buffer zone (outside road public road of the
section), the eastern fence line and then to deliver water and food supplies to the sleep-out team at the OP.
Action
The author and the proceeded to the buffer zone and drove with the vehicle lights dimmed for a distance and stopped the
vehicle at a hidden location with all lights off when seeing a suspected vehicle. At 21:50 pm a Toyota Hilux with railings
approach the possession of the author and Sergeant. Two men stopped and exited the vehicle less than 50 meters from
the author and Sergeant’s possession at a farm gate. The men seemed to be unaware of the author and Sergeants
presence and the Sergeant recognized the one individual as one of the farmer’s adjacent to the park. The men opened the
gate and entered the farm yard. The author still noted their details such as time of arrival, the vehicle registration could not
be identified but the vehicle description was noted. After two hours of patrolling the author and Sergeant proceeded to the
sleep-out team and exchanged information about their observations.
Outcome
Fortunately no suspicious incidents occurred at the night of the patrol and the Sergeant dropped the author at his residence
at 01:30am. The author and the Sergeant covered 82 kilometres in a 4 hour patrol that night in at the northern buffer zone
to the east management entrance towards the central zone.
22
Comments
The author felt that the procedure and patrol tactics were done relatively undetectable with consideration of the limited
resources available and the large area that was covered.
6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESMENT
6.2.1 Environmental Impact Assessment of the Southern Cross Farming (PTY) Ltd
Background
On the 23rd of December 2014 the author became a registered affected party of the proposed Southern Cross Salmon Fish
Farming development proposal in Saldanha Bay. The proposed development aimed to establish an of shore net cage fish
farm at two independent sites in the Saldanha Bay lagoon (Appendix 14). The development also planned to deliver value
added local fish products as a substitute for products which is normally imported from Europe. It was planned that
production would increase to a reach an annual potential maximum of 1200 tons after three years (Sempill pers. comm.
2015).
Details
A Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment Report was drafted for the application to the Department of
Environmental Affairs in terms of Section 20 (2) (a) of the National Environment Management Act, 107 of 1998. The
application for the proposal was accepted on the 20th November 2014 by DEA (Ref 14/12/16/3/3/747). The implementation
of the proposal required environmental authorizations in respect of the activities in terms of Section 24(D) of the National
Environmental Management Act, 107 of 1998. The author saw the advertisement of the Environmental Impact
Assessment’s (EIA) proposal on the 12th December 2014 in the Weslander local newspaper of Saldanha Bay. The author
then contacted the Independent Project and Environmental Management Consultant (IPEMC) Alastair Sempill via email.
The author requested to be an Interested and affected Party of the EIA process which he confirmed on the 23rd December
2014.
Action
On the 11th of February 2015 the author received the first phase of the Scoping EIA report for the application from the
IPEMC via email. The author was asked to review the scope and reply all comments before the 10th of March 2015.
Outcomes
An amended Scoping EIA report was later post-mailed on a CD to the author via email by the IPEMC. The author’s
comments were addressed on the Scoping of the EIA report from an ecological and conservational point of view.
23
Comments
The author made comments such as the use of anaesthetics in point D of the Scoping report: when harvesting/transporting
the fish has not been explained how it will be limited to prevent other species in the marine environment from being
negatively affected. The author’s biggest concern was that Mr Agotnes compared point (I) 5 with his experience in
Gansbaai, whereas the population density of coastal-bird species and seals in the MPA of Saldanha differs from Gansbaai.
The author wanted to know what other control measures could they put in place to ensure that the problem is minimised
because the response in the scope was vague.
6.3 VISITOR HEALTH AND SAFETY/ SECURITY/ RISK MANAGEMENT
6.3.1 Risk Assessment for Darlington Dam section and Kuzuko Private Game lodge consolidation
Background
One of Addo Elephant National Park’s (AENP) core functions is to provide a safe and secure environment for both staff and
visitors to the park in compliance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act (Act 85 of 1993) as amended as well as the
Environmental Regulations for Workplaces Regulations of 1987. At the same time ensure that the integrity of the natural
and cultural resources of the area is maintained in a sustainable manner in compliance with the National Environmental
Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003 (Act 57 of 2003). Any compromise with regards to safety would receive negative
international coverage as between 2013 and 2014 a percentage of 39.4 % of the park’s visitors were international tourists
(SANPARKS 2015).
Details
AENP consists of a number of private five star accommodations which forms part of the Greater Addo Elephant National
Park Programme (GAENPP) where concessions and contractual agreements have been formed with private land owners in
compliance with the Development Facilitation Act (Act 67 of 1995), the Physical Planning Act (Act 88 of 167), the Prevention
of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (Act 19 of 1998), the Labour Tenants Act (Act 30 of 1996),
Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act (Act 22 of 1996), the Communal Property Associations Act (Act 22 of 1994),
the Expropriation Act (Act 63 of 1975) and the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (Act 62 of 1997) (SANPARKS
SECIALIST REPORT NO. 14). Thus ultimately adds a large percentage of international visitors to the park. Kuzuko lodge is
a private lodge contractual area located adjacent to the western boundary of the Darlington dam section (Appendix 15). One
of the future objectives of AENP is to drop the western fence line to merge the Kuzuko contractual area with the Darlington
Dam section. The aim is to develop eco-tourism in the section that that would contribute to AENP’s financial self-
sustainability. Some of the large game to be introduced from Kuzuko to the Darlington section includes elephants, eland,
springbok, gemsbok, mountain zebra as well as carnivores such as lion, cheetah and wild dogs. The park management
therefor plan to develop two bush camps, a caravan park, shore angling spots, ablutions, a possible new lodge on the
banks of the Darlington Dam, information office/reception as well as offering guided game drives and boat cruises on the
24
dam. There is also a public road that runs through the Darlington Dam Section which links the northern boundary with the
south-western boundary. The public road users are not allowed to digress from the public road when driving inside the park.
EPWP contractors are only allowed during the week inside the section.
Action
The author decided to do a risk assessment of the development during his service period at the Darlington Dam Section.
The exercise was aimed to point out security and safety risks that visitors/tourists and staff residence might face if large
game and carnivores would be introduced in the Darlington dam section and also determine possible mitigation and
prevention measures.
Outcome
Table 3 Risk assessment of the eco-tourism development on the banks of the Darlington Dam.
Introductions/developme
nt
Risks identified Possible implications of
risks
Mitigation and action to be
taken to seize potential risks
*Introduction of game and
carnivores
*Carnivore
attacks on visitors
*poaching
*Injuries/ fatalities
*Decrease in visitors
*Decrease on wildlife
*Ranger observations/
patrols/anti-poaching
unit/heavily armed
*Awareness/signboards
indicating wild animals in the
area
*Bush camps on western
banks of the Darlington
dam
*Carnivore/large
herbivore access
*Floods
*Drowning of
visitors
burglary
*veld fires
*Animal/human conflicts at
bush camps
*Health and safety risk for
visitors
*visitor’s valuable
possessions loss and
possible attacks on visitors
by burglars.
*loss of habitat and
species/loss of
infrastructure
*erect fence surrounding the
bush camps
*improve water drainage and
soil erosion prevention
measurements
* security cameras & visible
patrols around bush camps
&access areas
*Secure safety of infrastructures
according to EIA regulations
and Occupational H&S Act
*veld fire management plan into
place
*Caravan park on eastern
banks of the Darlington
dam
*Floods
*Inaccessible
roads as a result
of floods
*Drowning or injury of
visitors
*Vehicles and caravans
getting stuck in muddy road
* Secure safety of
infrastructures according to EIA
regulations and Occupational
H&S Act.
25
*Opportunistic
animals such
vervet monkeys
feeding off human
food supplies
*Human animal
conflict
conditions
*Litter pollution and
human/animal conflict
*monkey proof bins
*signage warning visitors about
Opportunistic wild animals
*Boat cruises and canoeing
on dam
*Conflict with
large game such
as elephants and
hippopotamus
*Injuries or fatalities to
visitors on boats by
hippopotamus
* well trained& experienced
skippers/field guides, potentially
armed
* H&S SOP for boat cruises
*Shore angling on eastern
banks of the Darlington
dam
*Elephants/hippop
otamus/water
birds conflict with
anglers/tangled in
fish rod lines
*Injuries/fatalities to
humans and animals
*identify designated areas for
angling away from aquatic
wildlife hotspots
*Staff residence *Access of
carnivores
*Access of
potentially
dangerous large
game such as
elephants
*Conflict/injuries/fatalities to
humans and animals
*Damage to infrastructure
*secure fence around staff
residence
* secure animal corridors
movements to prevent conflict
with humans
*Observation by Rangers for
any threats follow SOP to
prevent conflict.
*Guided game drives *Carnivores/game
conflict with game
drive vehicles
*Decline in visitors
numbers
*financial implications for
business
* must employ well experienced
field guides and
rangers/potentially armed
Recommendations
The author recommends that all mitigation measures and action plans should be scrutinized in finer detail to predict and
prevent any safety risks to visitors and animals. The author also suggests that an evacuation plan should be implemented
and a map layout of the infrastructure should be visible for visitors to identify an emergency assembly point.
26
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to acknowledge the following people for their guidance and assistance in the completion of this
module:
Ilse Welgemoed (Senior Section Ranger, Darlington Dam section AENP)
Solomon Lefoka (Senior Section Ranger, Main Camp AENP)
Elton Jansen (Environmental Monitor)
Nondumiso Mgwenya (People and Conservation Officer)
Alungile Nonyongo (People and Conservation Intern)
Zanokhanyo Mnyamana (Field Ranger)
Roland Carolus (Assistant Cluster Manager BSP)
Nqebisi Toornaat (Field Ranger)
Alastair Sempill (Independent Project and Environmental Management Consultant (IPEMC)
27
8. REFERENCES
PILLAY, D. 2015. Cycad poachers get jail sentence. Herald newspaper. www. Heraldlive.co.za
DEA. 2015. Southern Cross fish farm EIA scope. www. Environment.gov.za
SANPARKS. 2006. Coordinated Policy Framework Governing Park Management Plans.
SANPARKS. 2008. Addo Elephant National Park: Management Plan 2008.
http://www.sanparks.co.za/conservation/park_man/approved
SANPARKS. 2013. South African National Parks Strategic Plan For The Fiscal 2013/14 – 2017/18.
SANPARKS. 2015. Addo Elephant National Park: Management Plan review 2015.
http://www.sanparks.co.za/conservation/park_man/draft_plans.php
SANPARKS. 2015. Addo Elephant National Park. Conditions of Buffalo sale. Kirkwood Wildlife Sale.
SANPARKS. SECIALIST REPORT NO. 14. Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Greater Addo Elephant National
Park. Institutional Interview.
28
9. APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Map of Addo Elephant National Park (AENP)
Appendix 2 Case number of fence theft
29
Appendix 3 Day permit of Main Camp AENP
Appendix 4 Map of Main camp AENP
30
Appendix 5 Camping permit at Darlington Dam Section
Appendix 6 Patrol management and weekly plan
31
Appendix 7 Weekly Sitrep Report
Appendix 8 Vehicle authorisation inspection
32
Appendix 9 Infield inspection at Darlington Dam (DAFHP)
Appendix 10 Site inspection for alien vegetation site
33
Appendix 11 site inspection for soil erosion site
Appendix 12 Final inspection report for Soil erosion site
34
Appendix 13 Translocation permit for buffalo sales
Appendix 14 Proposed locations for Southern Cross Fish Farm (EIA process) (DEA 2015)
35
Appendix 15: Darlington Dam and Kuzuko lodge consolidation plan