Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
05PRETORIA1493
2005-04-15 08:39:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Pretoria
Cable title:  

SOUTH AFRICAN PARKS OFFICIAL ON ELEPHANT CULLING

Tags:  SENV SOCI ECON SF 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 PRETORIA 001493 

SIPDIS

STATE FOR OES/ETC, OES/STC, AF/S, AF/EPS
INTERIOR FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
USDOC FOR 4510/ITA/MAC/AME/OA/DIEMOND

E.O. 12598: DECL: 04/13/15
TAGS: SENV SOCI ECON SF
SUBJECT: SOUTH AFRICAN PARKS OFFICIAL ON ELEPHANT CULLING
IN KRUGER NATIONAL PARK

REF: 04 PRETORIA 4950

(U) Classified by: Acting Economic Minister-Counselor
Alan Tousignant.
Reasons: 1.4 (d).

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 PRETORIA 001493

SIPDIS

STATE FOR OES/ETC, OES/STC, AF/S, AF/EPS
INTERIOR FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
USDOC FOR 4510/ITA/MAC/AME/OA/DIEMOND

E.O. 12598: DECL: 04/13/15
TAGS: SENV SOCI ECON SF
SUBJECT: SOUTH AFRICAN PARKS OFFICIAL ON ELEPHANT CULLING
IN KRUGER NATIONAL PARK

REF: 04 PRETORIA 4950

(U) Classified by: Acting Economic Minister-Counselor
Alan Tousignant.
Reasons: 1.4 (d).


1. (C) Summary. The top conservation official at South
African National Parks confirmed the accuracy of press
reports on his recent, well-publicized statement on the
necessity of culling in order to manage the elephant
population in the Kruger National Park. He reached this
conclusion based on the lack of other viable alternatives
together with the need to protect biodiversity. He noted
the increasingly important role that ethics and values
(elephants vs. broader biodiversity) would play in the
government's final policy decision. The official thinks
that concerns about the negative impact that
reintroducing culling would have on wildlife tourism and
visitors to Kruger are overblown. He believes the
Minister will avoid making a direct ruling on culling,
for fear of being remembered only for the killing of
elephants, and will instead maneuver to have the Cabinet
or Parliament make a collective decision on this
controversial and emotive issue. End summary.

Introduction
--------------


2. (U) EST Officer and EST Assistant met with South
African National Parks (SANParks) Executive Director of
Conservation Services, Hector Magome, on April 7 to
discuss recent media reports on his blunt comments
regarding the culling of elephants in the world-famous
Kruger National Park (KNP),with a land mass the size of
Massachusetts. Magome has extensive experience (19
years) as a wildlife biologist. He received his PhD from
Colorado State University, with financial support from
the African Wildlife Foundation. In mid-March, a
journalist quoted Magome as saying We are strongly
leaning towards culling and want the public to digest
this hard fact.Magome confirmed to us that he was
quoted correctly and provided some history and
justification for his opinion.

History of Kruger elephants and culling
--------------


3. (U) Magome noted that culling had been introduced in
Kruger National Park in the 1960s, around the same time

that the first serious census of the Kruger elephant
population was taken. He said at that time the experts
established scientifically that a 7,000 elephant ceiling
was the parks maximum capacity. For the next 25 years
or so, KNP officials used culling to keep the elephant
population steady at 7,000. Since the moratorium on
culling was introduced in 1994, the KNP elephant
population has grown to almost 12,000 today.
Statistically, elephant populations tend to double every
10 to 13 years. This is roughly what has happened in
Kruger since 1994. Elephants have no natural predators
(man aside) and because their rugged digestive systems
allow them to eat junk and just about anything they
want, they fare well even in times of drought, when many
other species suffer losses because unique food sources
are scarce.

Alternatives to culling after 1994 insufficient
-------------- --


4. (SBU) As reftel noted, since 1994 KNP officials
explored other options for dealing with the growing
elephant population. The first is 'habitat expansion',
largely supported by the International Fund for Animal
Welfare (IFAW),which purchased property to increase land
holdings in national parks. Magome said this option has
been fully utilized, and further habitat expansion is not
possible. He added that IFAW is critical of SANParks
consideration of reintroducing culling and had submitted
a thick anti-culling petition to him. He noted that the
only agreement made with IFAW was that SANParks would not
cull any elephants located on the new land that IFAW
purchased for elephants habitat expansion.


5. (SBU) A second mechanism, "translocation," is
extremely resource- and time-intensive. Magome said the
Peace Parks Foundation provided funding to move 1,000
elephants into Mozambique over three years, but the
experienced elephant capture team at KNP has been able to
move only 150 elephants, at a higher cost per elephant
than PPF envisioned, approximately 5,000 Rands
(approximately $825) per head. About 30 of the elephants
made their way back from Mozambique to KNP, via the small
area where the border fence between the parks has come
down (as part of the establishment of the Greater Limpopo
Transfrontier Park). Magome confirmed recent press
reports that some elephants have been observed moving
from the South Africa side to the Mozambique side of the
Park, but said the numbers were modest.


6. (SBU) Contraception, a third tool, has been tested
with help from the Humane Society and can be used
effectively in smaller parks, but is not feasible for
KNP. Magome said that for contraception to work
effectively, about 4,000 female elephants in KNP would
have to be injected initially, followed by a booster shot
a week later, and then monitored. In a park as big as
KNP, the logistics of injecting and tracking so many
elephants would affect the management and atmosphere of
the park in unacceptable ways. Magome said such an
effort would monopolize the time of all KNP staff to the
exclusion of all else, and would change visitors
experiences as well, by requiring the constant deployment
of helicopters and four-wheel drive vehicles to follow
the female elephants. He added that more research is
necessary to understand the impact of contraception on
elephant groups and family roles, as females inability
to conceive could have negative consequences.

Balancing act: elephants vs. biodiversity
--------------


7. (SBU) Magome raised the issue of biodiversity and its
importance in KNP. He said he accepted that SANParks and
the SAG must be responsive to the animals rights groups
and the broader public, but he noted that South Africa
has a responsibility as a 'mega diverse' country to
protect its biodiversity, and also had obligations under
the Convention on Biological Diversity. This
responsibility rests mainly with government policy
makers, and he believes the current controversy hinges on
ethics and value systems, and where to draw the line
between protecting elephants and protecting other animal
and plant species. SANParks role is to make
recommendations for elephant management based on science,
but not to make the policy decisions, which take into
account political, economic and ethical concerns. As
Reftel noted, the Minister of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism will receive recommendations and is responsible
for making the decision, anticipated later in the year.
Magomes view is that culling is a necessary tool for
elephant management in KNP. He does not advocate culling
in isolation, but believes it is critical that it be an
available option for wildlife managers.

Limited impact on tourism
--------------


8. (C) Magome said he would never publicly admit this
because it would not play well in the media, but the
argument on losing tourists (and by extension, commerce
and jobs) due to culling was weak. In contrast to major
game parks in other African countries that rely on
foreign demand for wildlife tourism, he said the majority
of visitors to KNP are from South Africa: 1 million out
of the 1.2 million visitors last year were local
residents. Most of the opposition to culling appears to
be coming from international groups. He added that the
decision to cull between the 1960s and 1994 did not have
a notable impact on foreign tourists visiting Kruger, but
he conceded that todays prevailing ethics could be
different. Still, he does not believe that reintroducing
culling would have a significant impact on the number of
foreign tourists visiting KNP.

Next steps decision by the SA Government
--------------


9. (C) Magome stated that the Minister of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, would not
directly approve the culling option. He said the
Minister recently said in a meeting that he did not want
to go down in history as the Minister ho killed
elephants, ecalling a predecessor who, despite many
positive achievements, is only remembered for allowing
seals to be culled. Magome jokingly noted that the
hite brothers Afrikaaners) would forever remember van
Schalkwyk as the politician ho killed the NNP New
National Party, the Apartheid-era ruling party that van
Schalkwyk headed until he brokered a deal in 2004 to
merge into the ruling African National Congress party,
effectively dissolving the NNP) rather than elephants.
Magome thought the Minister would orchestrate a way for
the decision to be referred to Cabinet or Parliament for
collective action. (Note: This is consistent with recent
statements on elephant culling made by the Minister
spokesperson, that he
Minister may want to convene a
team of experts; he may want to consult other interested
parties, the parliamentary select committee or Cabinet
colleagues There may not even be a decision by October;
it depends on the process. nd note.)

Gag order imposed on SANParks
--------------


10. (C) Magome indicated that the Minister was extremely
unhappy with Magome comments about culling because they
generated controversy for him and his Department. He
subsequently ordered Magome, the SANParks CEO Mavuso
Msimang, and its chief Communications Officer not to
speak to the media, Magome said. Magome also noted that
he has survived past attempts by senior officials to have
him fired for his forthrightness and candor. He
mentioned an effort to discredit and fire him by the
former Director-General for Environmental Affairs and
Tourism that the former Minister (now IUCN President)
Valli Moosa thwarted.

Comment
--------------


11. (SBU) Magome noted ironically that SANParks is a
victim of its own success in managing wildlife and
stamping out poaching. By speaking candidly about the
need for the option of elephant culling, he has become
the lightning rod for animal rights and wildlife
activists opposed to the practice. If his candor costs
him his job, it will be a loss to SANParks and national
wildlife management.