South Africa to pocket AR money

South Africa Prepares to Pocket Animal Rights Money

By Simon Ward

South Africa's National Parks Board (NPB) has lain the groundwork for accepting donations from two animal rights groups that could have profound repercussions for wildlife management both in that country and throughout the region.

The NPB recently launched the Elephant Relocation Project with the aim of raising money to buy land for elephants translocated from Kruger National Park. The "obvious advantage" of this scheme, says an NPB press release, is that "no culling of family groups of elephants will be necessary in the Kruger National Park next year."

EDITORIAL

South Africa charts high-risk course

South Africa has become a key battleground to determine the future of wildlife management in southern Africa. While the "sustainable use" movement has been recording successes and winning converts across the region as a whole, including in South Africa, Western animal rights groups are now staging a major assault aimed at influencing policy in the region's wealthiest member.

Spearheading the offensive are the animal rights groups IFAW and HSUS, which are now attempting to influence wildlife policy with an offer to South Africa's National Parks Board (NPB) of US$5 million (see lead story). While the money is intended for the seemingly benign causes of elephant translocation and research on contraception, it comes with conditions attached that many, even within the NPB itself, believe the NPB would be foolish to accept.

Not least of these is that hunting and culling will be ruled out as means of controlling translocated elephant herds in the future. While translocation of overcrowded wildlife is fine in principle, it is only a temporary measure, as animals will continue to breed in their new locations. But what are the managers of these translocated herds to do when the problem of overcrowding inevitably recurs? The answer, we must assume, is that some time between now and then an effective means of elephant contraception will be developed. But if not?

The NPB has already stated its desire to expand the National Parks estate, which again is fine in principle. Only 5-6% of South Africa is currently devoted to protecting wildlife, which is far less than in most other African countries. But if the contraception project fails, the only management tools for controlling elephant populations will be to translocate them once again, or let nature take its course and have them die from starvation. As long-term strategies, neither seems particularly enlightened.

Another concern which the NPB must bear in mind is that expanding the parks area simply to make more space for elephants will, at least in the short term, reduce the amount of money available for management per unit area to the detriment of the parks system as a whole. This is of particular concern as the NPB is currently facing subsidy cuts of tens of millions of rand, which could make present operational costs hard enough to meet, not to mention the extra costs that increasing protected areas will incur. IFAW would have the NPB believe that ecotourism will fill the shortfall in revenues, and well it might at some future time, but the same promise was made by IFAW to the sealers of Newfoundland as it campaigned to close their markets, and proved utterly empty.

And last but not least, making ecotourism the exclusive option for earning revenue from wildlife reduces the possibilities for rural communities to participate in wildlife management to taking jobs in service industries. Whilst it is not the NPB's responsibility to ensure neighbouring communities derive income from its parks, how the NPB chooses to use wildlife inevitably affects the livelihoods of these people. It is therefore incumbent on the NPB to show visionary leadership beyond the narrow responsibilities of its remit to preserve wildlife, and manage parks in such a way as to give them more relevance than simply as tourist destinations.

Regional Implications

Ultimately, whatever course the NPB chooses to chart is an internal South African issue, but the implications of poor decisions will be far-reaching for the entire region. The history of animal rights groups in Europe and North America demonstrates that once they have got their foot in the door, they don't stop. For southern Africa, the elephants of Kruger are only the beginning.

If South Africa abandons culling and hunting as means of controlling elephant populations, neighbouring countries will come under pressure to do the same. The example of South Africa will be held up as a shining light in media campaigns, while countries which have based their wildlife policies on a broader range of management options will be vilified.

South Africa is at a cross-roads, and for the future of the region as a whole, it is vital that wise decisions are made. The availability of funds will inevitably play a role in the successful implementation of whatever policy it pursues, but if those funds are conditional on policymakers agreeing to have their hands tied, a short-term gain today could herald tomorrow's disaster.

In response, sizable offers of cash have been made by the animal rights groups International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), but both come with strings attached.

The basic terms are as follows. IFAW will pay US$2.5 million over five years which the NPB will use to buy land for translocated elephants. HSUS, meanwhile, will donate the same amount for research into elephant contraception.

The problem lies in the onerous conditions which IFAW wants attached to its donation. Although details have not been published, informed sources say IFAW wants a guarantee from the NPB that no elephants or any other species will be culled or hunted on land purchased with its money, in perpetuity. It also wants an assurance from the government that it will not support any proposal to downlist elephants to Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) at its next meeting in 1997. Downlisting would reopen international trade in elephant products.

The HSUS offer, meanwhile, is believed to be conditional on IFAW's offer being accepted, plus a further condition that HSUS will have all publicity rights for the contraception programme.

No Cull

The offers come at a time when a new NPB is reviewing management policy for the elephants of Kruger. For the past 28 years, the elephants have been culled to keep their numbers at about 7,500, but in 1994, some animals were also translocated for the first time.

In May 1995, the NPB was drawn into a public debate on the need for culling with the animal rights group Front for Animal Liberation and the Conservation of Nature (FALCON), which is financed in part by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA). "The NPB won the debate," says Julian Sturgeon of ART's South Africa office, "but FALCON won the media battle. With the help of animal rights groups such as the EIA and the HSUS, FALCON worked the media and very few people in South Africa ever realised that it had actually lost the debate."

With all the negative publicity about elephant culling, the NPB reduced the size of the cull in 1995 and promised a full review of its management policy - a move publicly supported by President Nelson Mandela. To this end, the NPB has promised further public debate and the invitation of suggestions in August, with the revised policy to take effect from October 1 this year.

Key Meeting

As part of the review process, the NPB held a key meeting on March 29, which included on its agenda the offers of money from IFAW and HSUS.

Following the meeting, the NPB stated in a press release that there would be no elephant cull in Kruger this year. It would, however, continue to translocate family groups "as and when suitable destinations arise." There was no suggestion that the decision to stop culling was linked to the offers of money.

The press release also stated that "the time was not right" for South Africa to support the downlisting of elephants to CITES Appendix II. Among several reasons cited as justification were "severe criticism" by TRAFFIC of South Africa's "inability" to control its wildlife trade, and the "inability of consumer countries to impose proper import controls."

The NPB also expressed the defeatist view that downlisting was not worth pursuing because it had little chance of success. "The Board is of the opinion that, in the light of all these shortcomings and negative perceptions, it was most unlikely that broad support for a South African down listing proposal would be forthcoming from African countries," said the press release. "The Board foresees little chance of the success of any South African effort to lift the ivory ban under present circumstances, and has, for the present distanced itself from such efforts."

Again, there was no hint the decision might be related to the offers of money.

Only in the final paragraph of the release is the money mentioned, in such a way as to suggest it would be accepted only because it could facilitate policies already set by the NPB.

"Although the Board welcomed these generous offers of support of its projects to translocate and increase the range of elephant habitat, there are still a few issues that have not been resolved," said the release. "The Board has instructed [chief executive] Dr Robbie Robinson to negotiate with these organisations before these donations can be accepted."

Given the profound implications for South Africa's elephant management policy that accepting these donations could have, it is to be hoped that the NPB will resist the urge to sign contracts before the public debate in August. However, the decisions to come out of the latest NPB meeting suggest policy may be modified specifically to make acceptance of the donations possible.