“It is proposed that South Africa should retain its independent spirit in order to protect South Africa’s interests and should use its influence to combat extremism in favour of non-whaling,” wrote Guillaume de Villiers, director of the Department of Sea Fisheries, in a document distributed to government departments and some conservationists this May.
After the document was leaked to the press, de Villiers made it clear that it was a proposal, not policy. “I would be extremely surprised if the government were to open up whaling on our coast,” he told Reuters. However, Peter Mokaba, chairman of the parliamentary committee on environment affairs, indicated to Reuters that the document should be given serious consideration. “We should not allow a situation where anything is not possible,” he said. “We must stay with the IWC to see what other countries are thinking, but keep our own options open.”
In the document, de Villiers highlighted anomalies in South Africa’s policies on mammal conservation, and called for adoption of a clear position before the IWC meets in 1997. “The approach and policy towards whales should be compatible with general policies towards the utilization of ... other mammals such as seals and elephants,” he stated.
De Villiers subsequently presented a “toned down” version of his proposal to a meeting on June 12 of the Committee on Environment Affairs and Tourism. Convened to review whaling policy, the meeting decided that South Africa would stick with its anti-whaling stance for the time being. However, it was also urged by de Villiers to evolve a consistent approach to the sustainable use of living natural resources such as elephants and whales.
Culling Controversy
De Villiers’s proposed initiative comes at a time of fierce controversy in South Africa over recent bids by two animal rights groups to influence the course of its wildlife management.
This May, the National Parks Board accepted US$2.5 million from the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) to translocate excess elephants out of Kruger National Park. The money will be used to buy new habitat for the excess elephants as an alternative to the traditional practice of culling, but it comes with strings attached.
Not least is that no wildlife will be culled on the newly purchased land in perpetuity, raising concerns about what to do when populations reach carrying capacity. IFAW also sought an assurance that South Africa would not support any proposal to reopen international trade in ivory. The National Parks Board, not wishing to appear to compromise South Africa’s sovereignty, rejected this condition, but conveniently decided not to pursue a reopening of the trade anyway.
Also believed to still be on the table is the offer of a further $2.5 million from the Humane Society of the US to develop a method of contraception for elephants. Acceptance of this money is expected to have profound repercussions for wildlife management throughout the region, and has anxious neighbours who base their development and conservation strategies on consumptive use of wildlife demanding clarification of South African policy.