kruger Archives - The Sardine News

Rhino Horn vs. Abalone

Rhino Horn vs. Abalone: It does not take a genius to work out that you cannot have those that are supposed to
protect an endangered species profit from trade in dead pieces of the same animals.
Even more so in the corrupt environment that currently exists in South-Africa. Rhino
horn and elephant tusks are excellent examples. International trade in rhino horn and
elephant tusks were banned in 1977 and 1989 respectively. In South Africa, confiscated
rhino horn and elephant tusks are stockpiled, but not sold. Admittedly this is a huge
temptation for criminals and corrupt officials; and there have been “irregularities.”
The arrangement regarding confiscated abalone on the other hand seems made in
corruption heaven. All confiscated abalone is handed over to the department of
Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (the department), who then have it processed
and auctioned. The proceeds go into the “Marine Living Resources Fund”, from where it
is used for the “operational expenses” of the department. In fact, the department has
been known to boast about being nearly “self financing” this way. As far as I could
determine, no checks and balances exist externally from the department.
Not surprisingly, a quick search on the internet will reveal several examples of
corruption involving departmental officials and confiscated abalone. One of the most
noteworthy incidents happened in 2018, when most of the top management of the
department, including the Minister, had a legal “punch up” amongst each other that cost
millions; and centered around confiscated abalone. Accusations of criminal conduct
were made by and against all parties involved. You can see the Groundup article by
Kimon Greeff.
https://www.corruptionwatch.org.za/fisheries-department-rots-from-the-top/
at
You would expect that this widely reported incident would motivate those in oversight
and conservation positions to establish a more appropriate arrangement for confiscated
abalone. While there was some discussion on the matter, the status quo remains. On
the DFFE website you will find details of a recent call by the department for the
submissions of tenders for the processing of confiscated abalone for a period of 36
months. The final date for submissions was
17 February 2025. (See
DFFE tender for processing abalone.pdf
)
While it is hard to access exact figures, it is estimated by those in “inner abalone
circles” that the Department trades the live equivalent of abalone at a volume that is 15
times greater than the total legal abalone fishery in South Africa. The department is
currently by far the biggest “legal” trader in wild abalone, and much concern has been
raised to me about the lack of transparency with regards to the amounts processed, the
amounts sold, the yields, the quality, the low prices achieved, the department competing
with the legal rights holders etc. etc.
Keep in mind that the confiscated abalone that the department exports represents only
a small fraction of the illegal trade, since few smugglers actually get caught. This is
confirmed by import figures provided by “traffic”, a monitoring organization. All abalone
are considered “legal” once it reaches the east, making monitoring relatively simple.
According to traffic, the illegal trade amounts up to the equivalent of nearly 3000 tons of
live abalone per year, worth over a billion rands annually.
As they say in a low budget telemarketing commercial: “But wait; it gets even better!!” –
at least from the department’s point of view. The department does not have to
confiscate the illegally harvested abalone themselves. Any abalone that gets
confiscated by customs, law enforcement or the police, has to be handed over to the
department, leaving plenty of time to consider the colour of their next Mercedes. Now
consider that, by implication, the WORSE the department performs at keeping abalone
alive and well in the water, the GREATER their income will be.
The results of this “arrangement” is evident. In the Overstrand, residents have stopped
trying to report abalone poaching a long time ago. Calls to the local branch of fisheries
enforcement go unanswered, that is if you can even find a number to call. I just did a
search on the internet for “fisheries enforcement Overstrand” and could find no number
to call. For many years the standard procedure from the department, if you managed to
make contact AND were not informed that there are no inspectors available, has been
to send a vehicle filled with inspectors to watch poachers killing abalone. This almost
never led to an arrest. It would be stating the obvious when saying that you cannot
enforce a water based crime from the land, and unless you interrupt the poachers in
their activities, you are wasting your time.
The department is NOT open for suggestions to improve their enforcement strategies,
nor do they seem to learn from their failures. An email requesting a meeting to discuss
these matters was pointedly ignored.
The results of nearly 20 years of this “arrangement” is evident to those who enter the
water regularly. You would be very lucky to spot even a single abalone today in areas
that used to be covered in them. Once again, our environment is quietly suffering under
this mismanagement, and the legal commercial abalone rights holders have lost the
bulk of their livelihoods, while DFFE officials have gotten fat (figuratively but sometimes
quite literally) off a resource that was never meant for them. From a government
perspective, instead of just collecting tax and levies off the abalone industry, they have
now effectively and to a large extent “taken it over”; and are walking away with the full
financial benefit that should have gone to the legal fishers.
If anyone should have a claim on the confiscated abalone, or at least on a part of it, it
should be the abalone rights holders, since it was their future income that was
plundered. Yet, as the resource declined, they suffered quota cut after quota cut, and
nearly all of them are currently in financial dire straits.
The sad thing is that this situation is probably reversible, and I have encountered much
goodwill and enthusiasm for such a project. It will unfortunately never happen unless the
department comes to the table. I can only appeal to those in influential positions to start
applying pressure where it is needed.
You can see this post on facebook at https://www.facebook.com/share/p/15urPFUnn8/
Don’t miss the next article.
Anton Kruger