About Yonge Nawe

Programmes

Resources

Press Information

Membership

Links

Search

Contact Us
 

Having identified worrying trends in natural resources management in the Swaziland, Yonge Nawe carried out a programme of qualitative research into conflicts in the wildlife sector.  The research included an outline of the regulatory framework for wildlife management, an assessment of conflicts arising between people and parks and recommendations for the way forward.  Key issues arising from the report are discussed below.

• Copies of the Executive Summary and Main Report of the research are available here. 
• A copy of the Game Act (amended 1991) is available here.
• Latest Update (January 2005) Recent News Articles on Communities and Wildlife Management in Madagascar, Kenya and Ghana are available here.

To continue dissemination of the Wildlife Conflicts research, Yonge Nawe also produced a documentary, Cries in the Wild, which recorded testimonies of community members who have been brutalized by game reserve and private farm owners.  Cries in the Wild was produced to raise awareness about these acts against indigenous people and to solicit assistance in bringing an end to their terror.

CAMPAIGN BACKGROUND

Parks in Swaziland

Swaziland has an economy that is dependent on agriculture and foreign direct investment.  There are attempts to boost the tourism industry so that it also becomes a major revenue earner.  Currently tourists visit the country to experience and enjoy the well-preserved culture and traditional ceremonies.  National parks and game reserves also contribute to the tourism industry.

Swaziland has about four percent of her land proclaimed as protected areas.  Swaziland National Trust Commission (SNTC), the national agency responsible for nature conservation, manages Malolotja, Mlawula and Mantenga National Parks.  Private companies also have a major stake in the industry; the foremost player is Big Game Parks (BGP) owned by Ted Reilly and his family. 

BGP owns and manages Mlilwane Wildlife Sanctuary and Mkhaya Nature Reserve.  BGP also manages one of the large national parks, Hlane Royal National Park which is owned by the Swazi nation and held in trust by the King.  Hlane draws finances from national treasury but reports on its performance are, according to BGP, submitted directly to the King.  The person of the King commands a lot of respect within Swaziland.  The alleged involvement of the King means the management of these funds and also the performance of the park cannot be debated by parliament like all other national expenditure.

Wildlife Management in Swaziland

In 1991 Swaziland passed the Game Act to curb rampant poaching. This law was administered by the Minister of Tourism, Environment and Communications in consultation with the Swaziland National Trust Commission.  Swaziland also signed and ratified the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES). 

In 1998, the administration of the Game Act was moved from the line Ministry to the King’s Office.  The administration of CITES was also moved to the King’s Office.  Ted Reilly, through BGP is responsible for these two instruments on behalf of the King.  BGP is both the management authority and scientific authority for CITES.  Again this makes BGP not accountable to anyone as they claim to be reporting only to the King.

CITES Administration in Swaziland

It is unbelievable yet true that an international instrument to which the country (through the government) is a party was given to a private individual to administer.  This is despite the obvious potential for conflict of interest as the same company is a major player in the industry for profit.
The management authority and the scientific authority are not supposed to be housed in the same entity so as to maintain accountability and transparency from the segregation of responsibilities.  It is now difficult to know what is going on with CITES in Swaziland as BGP which is the management and scientific authority does not find itself obliged to report and or consult with anyone.  Swaziland reports to the Secretariat of the Convention are only obtainable from BGP yet other country reports are accessible on the web.

Yonge Nawe believes that this situation is untenable for example: 

• In 2002 BGP exported eleven elephants to a zoo in the USA under the guise that parks were overpopulated.  This was done within the ambit of CITES and BGP was able to propose this export and also confirm it as scientifically justifiable. 
• At the recent CITES COP 13 in Bangkok Swaziland was granted permission to down-list her alleged sixty one white rhinos for trophy hunting and export to unstated destinations.  This proposal was again underwritten by BGP who has not consulted with other stakeholders whatsoever.  It appears to have been strictly a business decision in the financial interests of BGP. 

The Game Act provides wide-ranging powers to game rangers in the protection of wildlife.  Section 23(3) provides for the use of reasonable force by rangers in the execution of their duties and guarantees them immunity from prosecution.  For a game ranger to be covered by this section, they have to be appointed by the Minister of Environment in consultation with the SNTC and be published in the government gazette.
In August 1997, Ted Reilly, his son, his daughter, and five BGP employees were appointed rangers with backdated effect to 1991.
In 1998, the administration of the Game Act was moved from the line Ministry to the King’s Office.  Ted Reilly, through BGP is now responsible for administration of the Game Act on behalf of the King.

The Big Bend Shooting

This controversial backdated appointment came in the wake of pending criminal prosecution of Ted Reilly and his BGP rangers for the murder of one Ngcamphalala and his brother-in-law in 1992.  These victims were ambushed and gunned down in a public hotel in the presence of other customers in an alleged attempt to sell a rhino horn.  For this operation BGP had invited members of the South African Police force in Pretoria, four hours drive away from Swaziland.  Local police who were less than ten minutes away from the location of the shooting were not informed.
Immediately after announcement of the backdated appointments of the Reilly’s and their employees as game rangers, the prosecution was dropped.  The widow of Ngcamphalala is still seeking for the prosecution of her husband’s killers.

Reign of Terror

Armed with the immunity and appointments, BGP unleashed a reign of terror on communities.  The King’s name was used to intimidate government officers who dared to intervene including government ministers and the police.  People have been killed and others crippled and the perpetrators are not prosecuted.

Owners of other game reserves, and even private farm owners have joined the party and are maiming and killing community members.
The level and styles of torture that communities are subjected to are reminiscent to those of the apartheid regime in neighboring South Africa.  Some have been made to eat their own faeces, humiliated in front of their families, eat rotting carcasses of animals, shot at before being beaten with all sorts of weapons, roasted aliveover  open flames.  These acts are sometimes in full view of members of the public who are also too scared to intervene.  The victims are made to believe they are criminals and thus not worthy to be protected by the justice system.

Yonge Nawe’s Campaign

The present conservation framework is untenable for the reasons discussed above.  Yonge Nawe is campaigning for the following actions which would go some way towards normalizing the situation and develop effective and sustainable regulation of biodiversity in Swaziland:

• The immediate repeal of Section 23 of the Game Act;
• De-privatization of CITES in Swaziland, and setting up of seperate scientific and management authorities;
• Removing from private corporations the administration of wildlife and biodiversity laws and placing them in the responsible government ministries;
• Accessing justice and redress for victims of human rights abuses at the hands of park and farm owners;
• Bringing to book the perpetrators of these human rights abuses;
• Ensuring community rights to access, ownership and management of natural resources and biodiversity in Swaziland;
• Transparency and accountability in the biodiversity management by the government and her parastatals.