I HAVE decided to revisit this year’s World Environmental Day theme “Zero tolerance for the illegal wildlife trade; let us unite and fight” but focusing on offences and penalties related to wildlife.
The theme was spot on but I am made to wonder if there is adequate machinery to help achieve the zero tolerance?
What society first of all needs to understand is that the booming illegal trade in wildlife products is eroding earth’s precious biodiversity, robbing the natural heritage and pushing whole species towards extinction?
The killing and smuggling is undermining economies and the ecosystems, fuelling organised crime, feeding corruption and insecurity worldwide.
Wildlife, traditionally, refers to undomesticated animal species, but has come to include all plants, fungi, and other organisms that grow or live wild in an area without being introduced by humans.
Wildlife can be found in all ecosystems, deserts, forests, plains, grasslands, and other areas including the most developed urban sites with all having distinct forms of wildlife.
While the term in popular culture usually refers to animals that are untouched by human factors, most scientists agree that much wildlife is affected by human activities.
Humans have historically tended to separate civilisation from wildlife in a number of ways including the legal, social, and moral sense.
Some animals, however, have adapted to suburban environments.
These animals include domesticated cats, dogs, mice, and gerbils.
Some religions declare certain animals to be sacred, and in modern times concern for the natural environment has provoked activists to protest against the exploitation of wildlife for human benefit or entertainment.
On the other hand, the wildlife population is believed to be declining due to various factors but mostly through poaching.
But as I said in the introduction, I want to highlight some penalties that are slapped on the offenders and see if they are worthwhile, considering how lucrative the business is and its impact on biodiversity.
Let us take a look at some statistics I obtained from the Ministry of Tourism looking at how many offenders have been imprisoned, various wildlife cases recorded and how much the offenders are fined.
I have the 2015 annual and first quarter of 2016 reports but I will not publish the whole lot of that.
However, I will only focus from January to March this year because the figures project a similar picture even for the other months.
The cases were recorded at Chilanga, Chongwe, Mfuwe, Chinsali, Mumbwa, Livingstone, Mongu and Solwezi
In January, 67 various cases were recorded out of which seven people were imprisoned and 15 were fined realising a total fine of  K19, 230 while in February, 12 were imprisoned and five were fined realising K100, 000 from 56 recorded cases.
About 42 cases were recorded in March and four were imprisoned and fined 14 realising a K42, 000.
Some of the cases recorded included confiscations and recoveries of assorted ivory products, firearms, ammunitions, game meat, skins, live animals, fish and various items used by poachers.
According to the Act, a number of jail sentences range between three years and 20 years while the fine is 20 ngwee per penalty unit.
On the prohibition of bush or grass fires in public wildlife estate, the Act states that a person, other than a person authorised in writing by the Director, who causes a bush or grass fire in any public wildlife estate commits an offence.
Hunting or dealing with elephant or rhinoceros, a person, who hunts, wounds, molests or reduces into possession an elephant or rhinoceros in contravention of any provision of this Act commits an offence and is liable, upon conviction.
For a first offence, a term of imprisonment of not less than five years but not exceeding twenty years, without the option of a fine; and for a second or subsequent offence, to a term of imprisonment of not less than ten years but not exceeding twenty-five years, without the option of a fine.
If the court is satisfied that an offence, referred to in subsection (1), was committed for the purpose of, or in connection with, illegal trafficking in ivory or rhinoceros horn, the offender shall be liable, upon conviction.
For a first offence, to a term of imprisonment of not less than seven years but not exceeding twenty years, without the option of a fine.
The second or subsequent offence, whether or not the previous offence involved illegal trafficking, to a term of imprisonment of not less than fifteen years but not exceeding twenty-five years, without the option of a fine.
The penalty for unlawful hunting in National Park, Community Partnership Park or bird or wildlife sanctuary, according to Part 14 of the Zambia wildlife Act is (a) for a first offence, to a term of
imprisonment of not less than three years but not exceeding ten years, without the option of a fine.
For (b) for a second or subsequent offence, to a term of imprisonment of not less than five years but not exceeding fifteen years, without the option of a fine.
For illegal possession, purchase or sale of meat of wild animal or trophy 129. (1) Subject to section one hundred and thirty, a person who is in possession of, sells, buys, imports or exports or attempts to sell, buy, import or export a trophy or meat of a wild animal in contravention of this Act is liable, upon conviction, to a fine of not less than three hundred thousand penalty units but not exceeding six
hundred thousand penalty units, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or to both.
(2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) for the purpose of, or in connection with, illegal trafficking of trophy is liable, upon conviction — (a) for a first offence, to a fine of not less than one hundred and fifty thousand penalty units but not exceeding five hundred thousand penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not less than three years but not exceeding five years, or to both; and (b) for a second or subsequent offence, to a fine of not less than two hundred thousand penalty units but not exceeding six hundred thousand penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not less than five years but not exceeding seven years, or to both.
Illegal possession, purchase or sale of protected animal, trophy or meat of protected animal or prescribed trophy attracts 130. (1) A person who is in possession of, sells, buys, imports or
exports or attempts to sell, buy, import or export, a protected animal or trophy or meat of a protected animal in contravention of this Act commits an offence and is liable, upon conviction, to imprisonment,
without the option of a fine, for a term of not less than five years but not exceeding ten years.
(2) A person who is in possession of, sells, buys, imports or exports or attempts to sell, buy, import or export a prescribed trophy in contravention of this Act is liable, upon conviction — (a) for a first offence, to a term of imprisonment, without the option of a fine, of not less than five years but not exceeding ten years; and (b) for a second or subsequent offence, to a term of imprisonment, without the option of a fine, of not less than seven years but not exceeding fifteen years.
Well these are some of the penalties slapped on wildlife offenders if found guilty of the offences.
I believe the penalties have substance but the worry is the application which is negligible as most offenders are just fined which is almost nothing.
I do not want to be judgmental on the judiciaries but there is need to critically analyse some sentences.
For example, the sable smuggler case, investigators worked for months and managed to capture the culprits with 12 live sables at a remote airfield.
They were arrested and appeared in the Monze magistrate court but they were let out on bail.
It looked so fishy that they were re-arrested and appeared in the Mazabuka magistrate court.
The two were let go on bail, but amazingly the courts worked with excessive speed as the suspects were tried but fined a mere K200,000.
In my view the penalty was wholly inappropriate because it did not fit the crime; as I write this column they have gone back  to their country of origin.
I am interested to know the outcome of some cases that involved a man from Sioma who was arrested for being found with 117 kilogrammes (Kg)  of ivory, four Zambians for being in possession of leopard skins and a Congolese having 87kg of ivory pieces.
I would also want to know what happened to the two Zambians that were in possession of two kg of ivory pieces.
Much time, money and effort would be spent on anti-poaching and wildlife education but as long as the penalties are low nothing is going to change the status quo.
I am glad Public Relations officer at the Ministry Sakabilo Kalembwe reaffirmed in response to my press query over the extent of poaching in Zambia that Government would ensure that the problem is seriously brought under control.
He said the ministry is currently working hard to ensure that staffing levels for law enforcement are adequate to carry out wildlife conservation efforts and promote tourism in the country.
But all these efforts would remain irrelevant if the penalties are negligible; perhaps it is the reason why we are seeing more second offenders.
Finally, I want to thank the Wildlife and Environmental Conservation (WECSZ) Society of Zambia for giving an opportunity to interact with the members on the role of the media in sustainable management of the environment.
I must say the meeting was an eye opener and I want to encourage the WECSZ to engage more media practitioners in the conservation of the environment.
Doing so would enable more journalists develop passion and venture into Environmental Reporting, ultimately protect and conserve the environment for posterity.
WECSZ is the oldest and most established NGO (non-governmental organisation) in Zambia and has been in operation since 1953.
Originally founded as the Game and Hunting Preservation Association, the organisation has since become focused on education and conservation.
During the late 1950s, a project named Operation Noah rescued animals that would otherwise have drowned due to the rising water levels of the newly created Lake Kariba.
Since then the organisation has gone through a series of name changes and undertaken projects in wildlife education and more recently whole environment conservation.
That is it for today!
For comments: stanslous.ngosa@times.co.zm ngosastan@gmail.com
www.stanslousngosa.blogspot.com , tweeter @ngosastan
+260977694310, +260955694310