US embassy cable - 05PRETORIA1493

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.