Namibia: Are Politics and Profit Behind Plans to Cull Elephants?

The decisions made by the Namibian and Zimbabwean governments to slaughter hundreds of elephants amid a widespread drought will do very little to address the effects of human hunger or alleviate human-elephant conflict. So why are they really doing it? A real motive may be a thinly-veiled desire to make a profit… from selling ivory.

Both governments claimed that the culling of elephants will provide the much-needed source of food for hungry citizens facing starvation from the worst drought in decades. They have also claimed that they have more than enough elephants (in Zimbabwe’s statement it’s “too many elephants”) and that the cull will alleviate ongoing human-elephant conflict situations.

However, Namibia and Zimbabwe have been accused of conflating issues of elephant management, nutrition for drought-stricken villagers, and reducing human-wildlife conflict to create a smokescreen for the real motive behind the culls.

Elephant meat will not address widespread hunger

According to the Zimbabwe Livelihoods Assessment Committee (ZIMLAC) about six million people in rural areas – more than half the country’s population – will need food assistance between now and the next harvest. In a press statement , the Centre for Natural Resource Governance (CNRG), an organisation for climate justice, wildlife conservation, land and human rights, and environmental integrity in Zimbabwe, states that meat from the proposed cull  will not come anywhere near filling the food deficit. CNRG maintain instead that a “robust, well-thought-out and sustainable strategy to feed the hungry population is required”.

CNRG further notes that Zimbabwe’s staple food remains maize, supplemented by other small grains such as corn, sorghum, finger millet, wheat, and rice. This is what makes the difference between starvation and food security, not elephant meat. The same factors are true for Namibia where almost half a million people are facing high food insecurity. The organisation believes it would be better to Intensify international appeals for humanitarian aid to feed the drought-stricken population.

Elephant biologist Keith Lindsay says that the cull “is very likely to create a continuing demand on vulnerable wildlife populations that would be unsustainable in the dwindling areas of natural habitat. Wildlife cannot become a replacement for agricultural production such as crops and livestock, as its productivity is much more susceptible to the effects of variable seasonal conditions than the animal populations under human husbandry and protection. This vulnerability is only likely to increase as climate change brings patterns of ever more extreme weather events.”

Furthermore, culling is likely to increase demands for elephant meat from those not benefitting, which is likely to increase the poaching of elephants.

It is highly implausible that culling certain elephants will also address human-elephant conflict issues. If anything, the problem could be exacerbated as elephants become more aggressive in the face of lethal action against them.  Studies have suggested that any disturbance in local populations such as poaching, hunting, and culling heightens the aggression of elephants. More proactive measures, such as effective protection of agriculture and infrastructure, the growing of elephant-compatible crops, and land use for elephant corridors and elephant-free areas, exist and should be instituted instead of destructive lethal approaches.

Severe implications for elephants

The culls will have serious implications for elephants as they will set precedents and create expectations that will be nearly impossible to manage. Communities not benefitting from these culls may well call for culls in their areas too, or possibly even take the law into their own hands. Both species of African elephants are declining. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) African Elephant Status Report documents a decline of 30 percent (or 111,000) of African savannah elephants. There are already unsustainably high levels of poaching in the southern African region and studies have suggested that the elephant populations are declining.

In Namibia’s northwest, the desert-adapted population size of elephants is dangerously low  – only 62 elephants exist near where the Namibian government earmarked 21 elephants to cull. That would push the population to a point where they may never recover.

Botswana may join in the cull

Following Namibia and Zimbabwe’s announcement to cull elephants, Botswana may soon decide to join the fray. The country’s President Mokgweetsi Masisi said:”If our people are starving, we have a duty to feed them… In that respect, I’m sorry: we have no choice but to feed our people with some, if not all, of these elephants.”

Masisi was speaking to journalists before the Conference on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) Elephant Dialogue Meeting held in Maun where Botswana hosted delegates from 33 African elephant range states for behind-closed-doors talks on the trade in live elephants and other elephant-related issues.

The discussion on the trade in live elephants also raises several red flags. After the export of 144 wild-caught elephants from Zimbabwe and 46 from Namibia to zoos in countries outside of Africa in the past decade, CITES halted the practice in November 2022 citing that the exports did not benefit the conservation of African elephants in the wild.

While Zimbabwe has successfully been exporting live elephants, mainly to China, for years, live elephant exports beyond the natural range are prohibited in South Africa under the National Norms and Standards for the Management of Elephants. Namibia, like Zimbabwe, is in favour of exporting elephants internationally but they have been prevented by CITES under an annotation preventing the export live elephants outside Africa. However, in 2021, Namibia successfully exploited a loophole in the CITES regulations to export 22 elephants to a couple of zoos in the UAE. The country originally stated they were to capture 170 elephants (interestingly from the same areas as earmarked for the current culls).

The meeting ended without a definitive outcome which will likely be determined at the next CITES Conference of the Parties in November 2025. For now, at least, elephants may not be exported beyond their range states.

The real reason

The governments of Namibia and Zimbabwe (and possibly Botswana) know that culling or trading in live elephants will do little to solve the drought-related problems, which is why the question of “the real reason” behind the cull was raised. While Namibia’s reason may also be politically motivated in light of an upcoming election in November, all three countries have long pushed for a resumption of the lifting of the restrictions on the international trade in ivory.

The three governments have also threatened to leave CITES if the ban is not lifted. The countries house sizeable stockpiles of ivory. A few more hundred tusks from the cull will increase the size and value of those stockpiles considerably.  The threat to leave CITES, however, is just a case of saber-rattling. The countries are well aware that if they leave, they will not be able to trade with any CITES-member country (which is practically all countries of the world) in any species, of animal or plant – not only elephants. This means that the likelihood of their leaving the Convention is essentially nil.

Furthermore, the countries are substantially overstating the value of their stockpiles.  Zimbabwe said  that it has an ivory stockpile of 130 tonnes, worth US$600-million, which is an unrealistic figure of more than US$4,600/kg. According to a UN report , ivory prices average around US$150/kg. Therefore, a  more realistic valuation  of Zimbabwe’s ivory stockpiles would give a potential income of US$19.5-million. This is a 30th of Zimbabwe’s estimate. It is still a sizeable sum, but again one that will do little to solve the hunger crisis in the long-term.

At the Conference of the Parties in November 2025, CITES will vote on whether to open the ivory trade. This is unlikely given that the CITES annotations permitting future sales of ivory stockpiles were removed at the Botswana conference. These countries hope to make a tidy profit if the vote is won but they will need a two-thirds majority, as in the past when the southern African countries successfully petitioned to sell off their ivory stockpiles.

If the vote goes the way of those in favour of culling elephants, the floodgates for ivory poaching will open and Africa may see another 100,000 elephants wiped out in just a few years.

Dr Adam Cruise is an award-winning South African investigative journalist and academic who conducted extensive research on conservation and rural community development practices in Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe.