Over the past decade, drones ⁽²⁾ have played a large role in the American war on terror.⁽³⁾ Drones are often discussed in the context of extra-judicial killings,⁽⁴⁾ loss of privacy,⁽⁵⁾ and America’s interference in other states’ affairs.⁽⁶⁾ However, using drones for humanitarian purposes is a proposed method of using drones for positive purposes while shedding the stigma inherent in drone utilisation. The discussion on humanitarian drones has paved the way for discourse around drone usage in other contexts. Now, African states have the opportunity to deploy environmental drones (also known as eco-drones);⁽⁷⁾ drones whose sole purpose would be monitoring national parks and protecting them from illegal operations.

This CAI paper advocates using environmental drones in African national parks to protect against poachers, loggers, and others who attempt to thwart environmental regulations. The paper focuses on the benefits of environmental drones in Africa’s national parks, and analyses how they can be more successful than humanitarian drones have been to date. Finally, the paper considers the impact that environmental drones have made on other continents and calls upon African states to utilise these eco-drones in their environmental schemes.

The military origins of drones

After the September 11 attacks on the United States (US), the American military began deploying armed drones in Afghanistan.⁽⁸⁾ In October 2001, Muhammad Atef, al Qaeda’s military chief, was killed by a drone strike in Afghanistan.⁽⁹⁾ Drone usage quickly moved away from battlefields in Afghanistan and shifted to other regions. Drones were no longer just deployed by the American military; the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) began deploying drones for their own operations.⁽¹⁰⁾ Since 2004, at least 2,400 people have been killed by US drone strikes in Pakistan alone.⁽¹¹⁾ Drone operations have occurred as far away from the Afghanistan-Pakistan border as Yemen and Somalia.⁽¹²⁾

Drones have had a devastating impact far away from battlefields. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism ⁽¹³⁾ claims that at least 551 civilians have been killed during drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.⁽¹⁴⁾ Human rights groups claim that drones are responsible for the deaths of over 800 civilians worldwide.⁽¹⁵⁾ As drone strikes continue to shift from military operations to other, covert operations, they have harmed the reputation of the US with the governments they are attempting to court and civilians they are trying to sway.⁽¹⁶⁾

Humanitarian drones

Drones are not just for firing missiles, however.⁽¹⁷⁾ When drones dropped in price, from millions of US dollars to hundreds of thousands, they became readily available for purchase by non-military buyers.⁽¹⁸⁾ For example, human rights groups recently began advocating for humanitarian drones to be used for missions such as documenting human rights abuses.⁽¹⁹⁾ Advocates note that these drones can capture footage of human rights abuses that may end up leading to convictions before the International Criminal Court, or bring issues to light at the United Nations Security Council.⁽²⁰⁾ Furthermore, drones are now being deployed in peacekeeping situations. United Nations peacekeepers have recently requested surveillance drones for peacekeeping operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo.⁽²¹⁾ Humanitarian drones also strengthen aid operations in Sub-Saharan Africa and other areas that require the most assistance. Drones can supplement existing supply chains and provide emergency drops for essential food and medications.⁽²²⁾

However, humanitarian drones face serious issues. First and foremost, humanitarian drones would violate airspace of the countries in which they are deployed.⁽²³⁾ Since humanitarian drones would attempt to document human rights abuses, it is difficult to envision governments allowing these drones over their airspace. Second, drones have a military stigma based on the history discussed above. Therefore, it is not surprising that no major international aid or development agency has used significant numbers of drones for aid operations.⁽²⁴⁾ As discussed later in this paper, neither of these two concerns are applicable when it comes to environmental drones.

Eco-drones to protect against poaching

Drones can, and should, be deployed across Africa to protect the environment. Environmental drones, also known as eco-drones, would be most helpful in combating poaching, which continues to plague the African continent. Rhino poaching is a huge concern in South Africa – in 2012, 668 rhinos were killed,⁽²⁵⁾ and between 1 January and 7 February 2013, poachers killed 82 rhinos in the country.⁽²⁶⁾  Recently, the US branch of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) received a US$ 5 million grant from Google to develop technologies to combat wildlife poaching.⁽²⁷⁾ The WWF plans on deploying at least one drone in either Africa or Asia by the end of 2013, to combat poaching and other illegal activities.⁽²⁸⁾ However, due to the potential positive impact of eco-drones, governments should also get involved in buying these devices.

Environmental drones would be ideal to combat illegal poaching for three reasons. First, poachers in Africa are part of larger criminal organisations and are often heavily armed. Drones would provide rangers with knowledge of what they were facing before they went up against poachers. Second, there are not enough rangers to adequately monitor African national parks. Drones would seriously alter the dynamics, allowing rangers to cover more, albeit virtual, ground. Third, poachers would quickly realise that they were being monitored and would be deterred from their activities. These three reasons are discussed in more detail below.

Drones protect against heavily armed poachers

Poachers in Africa are often part of highly equipped criminal syndicates and are often heavily armed.⁽²⁹⁾ Allen Crawford, the project leader for the WWF Google technology project, told The Guardian: “It’s a very scary prospect for rangers...they could run into very heavily armed gangs of poachers, there’s usually four or five of them, sometimes with dogs.”⁽³⁰⁾ Crawford also mentioned that poachers utilise night-vision equipment and other technologies in furtherance of their poaching activities.⁽³¹⁾ Environmental drones would protect park rangers by, inter alia, providing them with real-time updates on how many poachers they are facing, how heavily armed these poachers are, and other information that could make the difference in saving rangers’ lives. For instance, over 150 rangers have been killed protecting Virunga National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo, since 1996.⁽³²⁾  Rangers are also generally ill-equipped to handle poachers. Of the 190 rangers that protect Ol Pejeta Conservancy (Ol Pejeta) in Kenya, only 40 are armed.⁽³³⁾ Drones would provide an extra layer of security and allow rangers to safely monitor poachers. Rangers fighting poachers would not be ambushed, as the poachers’ positions would be known before being engaged.

Drones track endangered species

Environmental drones would help rangers map out where endangered species are and continuously monitor them. Poachers often target private parks like Ol Pejeta because these parks cannot afford the security that publicly owned parks have.⁽³⁴⁾ Ol Pejeta, for instance, is a 90,000 acre game reserve with just 190 rangers.⁽³⁵⁾ Environmental drones would allow a much smaller-sized ranger corps to track vast expanses of land. Each aerial mission can cover around 50 square miles over a 90-minute flight.⁽³⁶⁾ Thus, it should come as no surprise that Ol Pejeta will be the first conservatory in East Africa to test an environmental drone.⁽³⁷⁾ Success in Ol Pejeta would quickly lead to drones being used in other parks across Kenya and throughout Africa.

Drones act as a deterrent to poachers

Environmental drones would provide a deterrent against poaching. These drones would constantly be buzzing above, deterring poachers from even entering parks. Further, high altitude drones would be able to track poachers to get to the middle men and monitor the entire poaching process.⁽³⁸⁾ These drones would follow poachers from the point they kill endangered species and note whom they meet up with and where the poached tusks and horns wind up. Short of stopping demand for these exotic goods in the Far East, tracking how they leave the continent is the best chance at curbing the trade.

Eco-drones versus humanitarian drones

Environmental drones would be successful for reasons where humanitarian drones currently fail. First, since individual governments would be utilising these environmental drones, they would not face issues of airspace rights and violations of state sovereignty. Whereas humanitarian drones risk upsetting the government in power in documenting abuses, environmental drones would benefit the government in power by protecting its natural resources from others. Second, although drones still have a military stigma, they would be deployed against poachers, criminal syndicates, illegal loggers and multinational companies violating environmental regulations. Because environmental drones would be targeting wrongdoers, rather than the civilian population at large, the stigmatisation should not be an issue. However, these environmental drones can only avoid stigmatisation if they are deployed in national parks and not allowed to gather intelligence throughout the state.

Eco-drones’ success stories in other regions

Environmental drones have already been successfully utilised in other regions. Drones have effectively photographed orangutan populations in Indonesia, protected rhinos in Nepal, and studied invasive aquatic plant species in the United States.⁽³⁹⁾ Drones’ successes in other regions should spur their use in Africa.

In January 2012, a drone captured employees at a meatpacking plant dumping blood into a river in Dallas, Texas.⁽⁴⁰⁾ Ultimately, the US federal government investigated the plant based on the photographs captured by the drone.⁽⁴¹⁾ This story demonstrated the power of environmental drones: the operator had instant evidence of an environmental violation.⁽⁴²⁾ This technology would be particularly important in Africa’s national parks. Drones would be able to capture evidence of illegal poaching, logging and drilling. Rather than requiring circumstantial evidence or vigilant park rangers in the right place at the right time, photographs from the drones would be instant evidence of violations. One example of how drones could be used in this way is in the case of SOCO International, a British oil and gas company that is planning on drilling in Virunga National Park.⁽⁴³⁾ One term that Congolese officials should put into any contract is that drones would monitor drilling from above and that any environmental violations would have severe consequences. This would protect the environment; even when corrupt officials might turn a blind eye to violations inside a plant. Further, non-governmental organisations and environmentalists would be able to send up their own drones to monitor compliance. This would alleviate the risks that they currently face, like trespassing, when they attempt to gather evidence of wrongdoing.⁽⁴⁴⁾

Environmental drones in Japan demonstrate how cost-effective this technology is and how it can be used to cover vast expanses of land.⁽⁴⁵⁾ The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society uses drones to monitor illegal Japanese whaling in the Southern Hemisphere.⁽⁴⁶⁾ “With the ability to see over hundreds of square miles, environmentalists can use drones to take in more of their environment than they ever could from the ground, for a lot less money than a manned aircraft.”⁽⁴⁷⁾

Finally, Brazil’s environmental police are using drones to monitor remote areas of the Amazon for deforestation, illegal fishing and sand mining.⁽⁴⁸⁾ Brazilian police previously used drones to prevent drug trafficking and other crimes.⁽⁴⁹⁾ However, the environmental police realised just how useful eco-drones would be in their fight against environmental crooks, especially because they can be deployed almost anywhere and stay aloft longer than manned aerial vehicles.⁽⁵⁰⁾

Concluding remarks

Drones will continue to play a role in security operations for the foreseeable future. However, now that proposals to deploy drones for humanitarian purposes exist, environmentalists should jump at the opportunity to use drones to monitor national parks throughout Africa. Drones are the cheapest and most effective way of protecting against poaching, logging and drilling. Furthermore, drones will reduce the number of park rangers who die in the line of duty protecting these parks and will also help capture poachers, track environmental compliance, and hold multinational companies accountable when they proclaim that they will work within existing environmental regulations. For those reasons, national parks throughout Africa must look into ways to deploy environmental drones.

Written by Joshua Alter ⁽¹⁾

NOTES:

(1) Contact Joshua Alter through Consultancy Africa Intelligence's Enviro Africa Unit ( enviro.africa@consultancyafrica.com). This CAI discussion paper was developed with the assistance of Angela Kariuki and was edited by Liezl Stretton.
(2) Drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), are aircrafts without human pilots on board.
(3) ‘Ecology drones track endangered wildlife’, The Guardian, 20 August 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk.
(4) Boyle, M., ‘Obama’s drone wars and the normalisation of extrajudicial murder’, The Guardian, 11 June 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk.
(5) Keen, J., ‘Citing privacy, critics target drones buzzing over USA’, USA Today, 10 January 2013, http://www.usatoday.com.
(6) Friedersdorf, C., ‘Yes, Pakistanis really do hate America’s killer drones’, The Atlantic, 24 January 2013, http://www.theatlantic.com.
(7) Environmental drones and eco-drones are terms that will be used interchangeably throughout this discussion paper.
(8) Sifton, J., ‘A brief history of drones’, The Nation, 7 February 2012, http://www.thenation.com.
(9) Byman, D., 2006. Do targeted killings work? Foreign Affairs, 85(2), pp. 95–111.
(10) Sifton, J., ‘A brief history of drones’, The Nation, 7 February 2012, http://www.thenation.com.
(11) Boyle, M., ‘Obama’s drone wars and the normalisation of extrajudicial murder’, The Guardian, 11 June 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk.
(12) Ibid.
(13) The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com.
(14) Boyle, M., ‘Obama’s drone wars and the normalisation of extrajudicial murder’, The Guardian, 11 June 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk.
(15) Hastings, M., ‘The rise of the killer drones: How America goes to war in secret’, Rolling Stone, 16 April 2012, http://www.rollingstone.com.
(16) Boyle, M., ‘Obama’s drone wars and the normalisation of extrajudicial murder’, The Guardian, 11 June 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk.
(17) Stobo Sniderman, A. and Hanis, M., ‘Drones for human rights’, New York Times, 30 January 2012, http://www.nytimes.com.
(18) Ibid.
(19) Ibid.
(20) Ibid.
(21) ‘UN seeks to deploy drones over DR Congo’, AlJazeera, 9 January 2013, http://www.aljazeera.com.
(22) Chow, J., ‘The case for humanitarian drones’, OpenCanada, 12 December 2012, http://opencanada.org.
(23) Stobo Sniderman, A. and Hanis, M., ‘Drones for human rights’, New York Times, 30 January 2012, http://www.nytimes.com.
(24) Chow, J., ‘The case for humanitarian drones’, OpenCanada, 12 December 2012, http://opencanada.org.
(25) Wild, S., ‘Drones now part of anti-poaching arsenal’, BusinessDay Live, 8 February 2013, http://www.bdlive.co.za.
(26) Vaughan, A., ‘WWF plans to use drones to protect wildlife’, The Guardian, 7 February 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk.
(27) Wild, S., ‘Drones now part of anti-poaching arsenal’, BusinessDay Live, 8 February 2013, http://www.bdlive.co.za.
(28) Vaughan, A., ‘WWF plans to use drones to protect wildlife’, The Guardian, 7 February 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk.
(29) Kermeliotis, T., ‘Drone ranger: Unmanned plane to spy on rhino poachers’, CNN, 30 January 2013, http://www.cnn.com.
(30) Vaughan, A., ‘WWF plans to use drones to protect wildlife’, The Guardian, 7 February 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk.
(31) Ibid.
(32) Russo, C., ‘The perils and rewards of protecting Congo’s gorillas’, Yale environment 360, 8 January 2013, http://e360.yale.edu.
(33) Kermeliotis, T., ‘Drone ranger: Unmanned plane to spy on rhino poachers’, CNN, 30 January 2013, http://www.cnn.com.
(34) Ibid.
(35) Ibid.
(36) Ibid.
(37) Ibid.
(38) Vaughan, A., ‘WWF plans to use drones to protect wildlife’, The Guardian, 7 February 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk.
(39) ‘Ecology drones track endangered wildlife’, The Guardian, 20 August 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk.
(40) Martin, A., ‘Using drones to capture environmental violations makes perfect sense’, The Atlantic, 25 January 2012, http://www.theatlanticwire.com.
(41) Ibid.
(42) Ibid.
(43) Hance, J., ‘British Government comes out against drilling in Virunga National Park by UK company’, Mongabay News, 26 November 2012, http://news.mongabay.com.
(44) Martin, A., ‘Using drones to capture environmental violations makes perfect sense’, The Atlantic, 25 January 2012, http://www.theatlanticwire.com.
(45) Ibid.
(46) Stobo Sniderman, A. and Hanis, M., ‘Drones for human rights’, New York Times, 30 January 2012, http://www.nytimes.com.
(47) Martin, A., ‘Using drones to capture environmental violations makes perfect sense’, The Atlantic, 25 January 2012, http://www.theatlanticwire.com.
(48) ‘Brazil hopes drones will help nab environmental crooks’, Earth Imaging Journal, http://eijournal.com.
(49) Ibid.
(50) Ibid.