This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 HARARE 001503 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR AF/S, OES 
USAID FOR AFR/SA, AFR/SD 
NSC FOR SENIOR AFRICA DIRECTOR JFRAZER 
DEPT OF INTERIOR FOR USFWS, DFERGUSON AND KSTROMAYER 
 
¶E. O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ECON EINV ETRD SENV ZI
SUBJECT: Environmental Impact of the Current Crises on 
Zimbabwe's Wildlife 
 
¶1. Summary:  This report, focusing on the status of wildlife 
in Zimbabwe, will be the first of several related reports on 
Zimbabwe's deteriorating environmental situation.  The 
combination of land seizures, economic pressure, general 
lawlessness, and hunger have taken a heavy toll on 
Zimbabwe's wildlife.  Attempts to quantify the situation are 
difficult, but at the most basic level, it is possible to 
estimate the impact of poaching on Zimbabwe as follows, from 
least affected to most affected: 
--  large animals in national parks 
    (negligible impact, possibly 2.5%); 
--  large animals in conservancies 
    (minimal impact, possibly 5%); 
--  protected animals (e.g., black rhino) in national parks 
    (limited impact, possibly 4-5%); 
--  protected animals (e.g., black rhino) in conservancies 
    (limited impact, possibly 5-6%); 
--  plains animals in national parks 
    (significant impact, in some areas as high as 30-40%); 
--  plains animals in conservancies 
    (high impact, in some areas as high as 60%); 
--  plains animals on private farms in commercial 
    agricultural regions 
    (catastrophic impact, upwards of 90%). 
Although these numbers and percentages are estimates, and 
subject to the inaccuracies inherent in estimation, the 
scope of the problem cannot be overstated.  Unless steps are 
taken to limit the impact of the current depredation on 
Zimbabwe's wildlife, the country will face a bleak 
environmental future when the dust finally settles.  End 
summary. 
 
¶2.  While Zimbabwe has received widespread condemnation for 
the devastating impact of poaching on wildlife, few reports 
have documented the full extent of the damage.  Poaching -- 
both on private and public land -- has escalated 
dramatically due to numerous factors, including widespread 
hunger, movement of "settlers" into lands previously 
dedicated to wildlife, and the general breakdown of law and 
order.  Many poachers kill animals in an attempt to feed 
their families.  Many settlers kill animals while clearing 
new land and attempting to establish dominion over newly- 
occupied territory.  In other incidents, commercial 
operators are taking advantage of the relative chaos by 
marketing "bush meat" and smuggling rhino horns.  Some 
highly subjective claims, such as one group's allegations 
that "Ninety percent of Zimbabwe's wildlife has been 
slaughtered," have gained widespread circulation despite the 
lack of empirical evidence.  However, while it is clear that 
wildlife has suffered from the current political crisis, 
quantifying the damage remains a Herculean task. 
 
¶3.  Many poachers throughout the country rely on wire 
snares, which indiscriminately kill any animal unfortunate 
enough to stray within reach.  In other areas, communal 
farmers or settlers use packs of hunting dogs to flush and 
run down antelope, zebra, or other plains animals.  Some 
landowners have reported a pattern of settler activity in 
which a settler will build a small stick-and-thatch hut as a 
hunting base, and proceed to poach all animals within range 
of that hut.  Once the easy poaching is finished, the 
settler will move on, clear enough woodland for a new hut, 
and begin poaching the new territory.  Although some of this 
meat is undoubtedly filling the pot of hungry settlers, much 
of this meat has reportedly made it to commercial butcheries 
in the large towns.  Some recent reports indicate that 
poaching is reaching commercial proportions with 
international implications.  Several rhino poachers arrested 
in July are suspected to be Zambians.  Also in July, a group 
of twelve South African sport hunters was arrested while 
trying to export over 400 kg of game meat reportedly taken 
on an occupied farm. Despite claims that their permits were 
in order, there is no evidence of compliance with any of 
Zimbabwe's strict statutory requirements for international 
hunters. 
 
---------------------- 
QUANTIFYING THE DAMAGE 
---------------------- 
 
¶4.  Wildlife in Zimbabwe can be classified by its size, its 
protected/non-protected status, and its location, all of 
which affect the impact of poaching.  First, large animals, 
such as elephant and buffalo, are more resistant to random 
poaching due to their sheer size and strength.  A great deal 
of Zimbabwe's widespread poaching is opportunistic, and what 
is killed depends upon which animals stray into the 
thousands of wire snares littering the bush.  Large animals 
which can break out of such snares might still die if snare 
wounds become infected, but many survive with few ill 
effects.  Second, some animals, such as rhinos, cheetahs, 
painted hunting dogs, and pangolins, are protected (to some 
degree) by the GOZ; other animals, such as antelope, 
giraffes, lions, and leopards, are not.   Much of the non- 
protected wildlife, particularly "plains animals" such as 
impala, eland, kudu, sable, wildebeest, and zebra, are 
widely hunted for food, while others are highly valued as 
trophies.  Some of the protected wildlife is hunted 
opportunistically, while others -- such as rhinos -- offer 
poachers commercial benefit, but require deliberate and well- 
equipped pursuit.  Finally, some wild animals inhabit state- 
owned parks or privately-owned conservancies, while many 
others previously lived on privately-owned commercial farms. 
Even now, some animals in parks and conservancies have 
escaped wholesale slaughter, while wildlife which inhabited 
regions formerly dominated by commercial farms has been 
almost completely hunted out. 
 
------ 
SIZE 
------ 
 
¶5.  The size of an animal has a direct impact on its 
susceptibility to the opportunistic poaching taking place in 
many wildlife areas.  Although neither elephant nor buffalo 
are specifically protected under Zimbabwean law, both 
require deliberate and well-armed pursuit; needless to say, 
snaring has a limited effect such animals. (Rhinos are 
considered separately, below.)  In Save Conservancy, for 
instance, while carcasses of 715 poached impala have been 
recovered by game scouts, only 6 poached elephant and 3 
poached buffalo have been identified.  Some large animals 
simply are not hindered by snares set low enough for the 
small plains game; other large animals become entangled, but 
manage to break out of the snare.  Sometimes such snare 
wounds fester and finally kill the animal; in some 
instances, elephants have been found with severed trunks. 
In other cases the snares are shaken off and the animals 
recover with few side effects.  Pursuit with dogs, 
similarly, is a tactic suitable for smaller animals, but 
dangerous for larger, stronger and more aggressive animals. 
 
¶6.  Elephant is one of the few species which has actually 
increased in number, even in the chaotic and lawless 
situation prevalent in much of Zimbabwe's rural lands. 
Conservationists estimate that although the Zimbabwe has a 
carrying capacity for about 45,000 elephants, the current 
population is more than double that number.  The most recent 
survey, conducted in 2001, indicated herds of around 89,000. 
Using a growth rate 3-4%, Dr. Cumming, previously the Chief 
Research Officer and Deputy Director of the National Parks, 
estimates that the herds now comprise more than 100,000 
animals.  The largest factor underlying this phenomenal 
growth, in addition to the elephant's relative 
imperviousness to casual poaching, is the international 
Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species 
(CITES) ban on the ivory trade.  Under that ban, countries 
such as the U.S. prohibit the importation of ivory and other 
elephant products.  Despite the ban, however, hunters (even 
American hunters) are still allowed to kill trophy 
elephants, and the current rate for trophy bulls is held at 
about .5% of the population -- which maintains both the 
population as well as the trophy quality. 
 
-------------------------- 
PROTECTED STATUS -- RHINOS 
-------------------------- 
 
¶7.  Black rhinos, one of the most endangered species 
worldwide and one of the few species to have officially 
protected status in Zimbabwe, have also been somewhat spared 
from the widespread devastation.  Under Zimbabwean law, 
wildlife belongs to no individual, but a property owner or 
occupier can use whatever wildlife that can be captured or 
"possessed" on his property.  Rhinos, however, officially 
belong to the GOZ.  There have been a number of successful 
black rhino translocations, but even where the animals have 
been placed on private land, the private landowner is merely 
a custodian and not an owner.  When Zimbabwe achieved 
independence in 1980, it was home to approximately 2,000 
black rhino, with a concentration of about 1,400 -- the 
largest population in the world -- in the Zambezi valley. 
Widespread commercial poaching (defined as poaching in which 
the horn is removed for sale) decimated the black rhino 
population in the late 1980's throughout Zimbabwe, and the 
number declined to about 370.  The GOZ established four 
Intensive Protection Zones (IPZs) in state land areas, to 
concentrate available government anti-poaching resources on 
the few relatively high-density rhino populations that 
survived the waves of poaching.  These four IPZs are 
Sinamatella (in Hwange National Park), Matusadona (on the 
southern shore of Lake Kariba), Matobo (near Bulawayo) and 
Chipinge (on the eastern side of Zimbabwe).   Due to the 
intensive conservation measures undertaken, Zimbabwe's 
population increased to about 520 black rhinos by 2000. 
 
¶8.   Prior to the land invasions, almost 75% of Zimbabwe's 
black rhinos inhabited commercial farms and conservancies, 
with approximately 200 in the Lowveld conservancies of Save 
Valley and  Bubiana.  According to conservation experts with 
the World Wide Fund for Nature, "Since early 2000, the rhino 
custodianship scheme has been greatly undermined because of 
large-scale invasions by subsistence farmers into areas of 
commercial ranching land, throughout Zimbabwe.  Peasant 
subsistence farming and rhino conservation are mutually 
exclusive activities.  Hence the invasions into at least a 
third of the total area of the rhino custodianship areas in 
southern Zimbabwe have displaced significant numbers of 
rhinos out of their home ranges and thereby stimulated 
fighting between the animals, leading to many injuries and 
the deaths of at least two black rhinos. Habitats are being 
cleared for patchy settlement and extensive bush fires that 
have arisen in this process have swept through 
conservancies, killing at least one black rhino calf. " 
 
¶9.  Despite the increased pressure on the habitat of rhinos 
and the competition between animals and settlers, there have 
only been a handful of documented commercial rhino poaching 
incidents since 2000.  Four incidents were confirmed on the 
Bubiana Conservancy, eight incidents were confirmed in 
Hwange National Park, and one incident was confirmed in 
Matusadona National Park.  Several other incidents have been 
alleged but not confirmed.  Many factors contribute to the 
increase in rhino poaching, despite an international 
moratorium on the sale of rhino horns.  Conservationists 
implemented a massive de-horning campaign in the mid-1990s, 
but most animals' horns have since grown back, making them 
once again attractive targets.  The lack of resources to 
support game scouts and anti-poaching units has decreased 
their effectiveness; the increasing "war-lord" mentality of 
many rural areas, where a powerful local man can take what 
he wants, has also been noted.  Additionally, heavily armed 
"military" personnel were implicated in several of the 
poaching incidents around the Sinamatella camp in Hwange. 
 
¶10.  The total black rhino loss due to land invasions and 
associated snaring within Save Valley and Bubiana 
Conservancies is probably 15-20 animals.  Losses in other 
areas, such as Gourlays, Hwange and Matusadona, could be as 
high.  Recent press statements have suggested that some 50 
rhinos, black and white, have been poached during the land 
invasions.  The known losses due to poaching (as of early 
April, 2003) are less than this figure and do not include 
any white rhinos, but there will definitely be some rhino 
snaring cases that have not yet been detected or reported. 
 
--------------- 
LOCATION 
--------------- 
 
¶11.  NATIONAL PARKS.  Zimbabwe has approximately 49,000 
square kilometers (km2) of state-owned "protected areas." 
Under Zimbabwe's framework, these protected areas are 
delineated as follows:  national parks, safari areas (or 
parks which allow hunting), recreational parks, sanctuaries, 
botanical gardens, botanical reserves, and forestry lands. 
Protected areas in Zimbabwe currently break down into 
several major clusters, in which a national park is 
surrounded by safari areas, recreational parks, and forest 
lands.  The most significant of these are: the northwestern 
Matabeleland cluster (Hwange/Kazuma/Zambezi National Parks, 
surrounded by the Matetsi and Deka Safari Areas); the 
southeastern Gona-Re-Zhou National Park (now part of the 
Transfrontier Park between Zimbabwe, South Africa, and 
Mozambique, along with several neighboring private 
conservancies); and the northeastern Zambezi Valley cluster 
(Matusadona and Mana Pools National Parks, surrounded by 
Charara, Sibilobilo, Hurungwe, Sapi, Chewore, Dande, and 
Doma Safari Areas). 
 
¶12.  Although parks have traditionally offered some 
protection from poaching to resident animals, that 
protection has evaporated under the current economic and 
political crisis.   Dr. David Cumming notes that the 
international standard for effective park management runs at 
about US $200-250 per km2.  The extreme range is represented 
by white rhino conservancies in the KwaZuluNatal province of 
South Africa, some of which reportedly spend about US $6,000 
per km2.  By comparison, he reports, the current Zimbabwe 
budget allocates about US $10 per km2.  Combined with the 
current political and economic meltdown, this lack of funds 
translates directly into less protection for animals:  fewer 
game scouts, fewer anti-poaching units, fewer vehicles, less 
fuel, minimal interest in pursuing poachers, and minimal 
sentences for those actually convicted. 
 
¶13.  Dr. Cumming cites, for example, the situation at the 
Sengwa research center, located in the Charisa Safari Area. 
Dr. Cumming lived at this location for almost twelve years, 
and has taken groups of graduate students to the research 
center for fieldwork for many years.  The research center is 
surrounded by Chizarira National Park, Chete Safari Area, 
and communal farmlands.  While the area has for many years 
enjoyed an abundance of wildlife, Dr. Cumming reports that 
it is almost completely decimated as of 2003.  When asked 
whether wildlife could have moved elsewhere, he states that 
the lack of animals is certainly due to poaching.  He notes 
that most Zimbabwean animals are prevented from large-scale 
migratory movements, such as those observed in Tanzania and 
parts of Kenya, by the geographical differences between the 
two regions.  He also notes that Zimbabwean wildlife 
movement is limited by animals' territorial attachments to 
home ranges, dependence upon limited water sources, and 
circumscription by surrounding hunting and farming areas. 
Given that there is no place for the animals to have gone, 
coupled with the hundreds of snares recovered in the area, 
he concludes that they have been hunted to annihilation. 
 
¶14.  PRIVATELY-OWNED CONSERVANCIES.   Prior to the 
commencement of the Land Resettlement Program, there were at 
least five officially-recognized, privately-owned 
conservancies (the multiple-property developments at Save 
Valley Conservancy, Bubiana Conservancy, Chiredzi River 
Conservancy, and the Bubi River Conservancy, and the single- 
property resort of Malilangwe Conservancy).  The GOZ has 
sometimes refused to recognize the legitimacy of other 
conservancies, claiming that singly-owned conservancies such 
as Gourlays Ranch or Amcit-owned Twin Springs Wildlife 
conservancy did not meet the "official" definition of a 
conservancy.  In reality, both Gourlays Ranch and Twin 
Springs occupy coveted property, while many of the 
"recognized" conservancies occupy marginal land in the 
drought-prone lowveld. (Note:  In fact, when questioned 
about the status of single-property conservancies, GOZ 
officials usually launch into a history lesson and defense 
of the entire land resettlement program, claiming that the 
tendency of private landowners to go into wildlife 
operations in the 1990s actually threatened Zimbabwe's food 
security, necessitating the land-grab and redistribution 
exercise.  The fact that food security was not at risk until 
after the land resettlement program devastated agricultural 
production is apparently moot.  End note.) 
 
¶15.  Information provided by conservationists indicates that 
several of the privately-owned conservancies have been 
poached almost to extinction, while several others seem to 
be maintaining some of their wildlife.  Gourlays Ranch and 
Twin Springs Conservancy have been heavily poached, while 
Gourlays has been occupied and both have been targeted for 
acquisition under the Land Resettlement Program.  Chiredzi 
River Conservancy and the Bubi River conservancy, although 
not formally designated for acquisition, have been partially 
settled and almost completely poached of plains animals. 
Bubiana Conservancy reports that it has also been partially 
settled and heavily poached in the northern section, 
although conservation groups state that most of the rhino 
population has been pushed into the southern section.  The 
pressure of this displacement on Bubiana's male rhinos -- 
which are territorial and solitary -- has led to fighting, 
injury, and several documented deaths, while there are 
several reports of commercial rhino poaching on the 
conservancy. 
 
¶16.  Both Malilangwe and the Save Conservancy have been 
accorded different treatment, and incurred different 
damages.  Malilangwe, a 480-km2 conservancy which is singly- 
owned by a trust (in which an Amcit is heavily involved), is 
a very high-profile retreat which previously boasted an 
international jet-set clientele, and that factor may account 
for the difference in treatment from that accorded Gourlays 
Ranch and Twin Springs Conservancy.  The manager of 
Malilangwe reports that while poaching has been an issue in 
outlying border areas, there have been no egregious 
incidents recently and there is currently no occupation or 
settlement. However, in a widely-publicized incident in 
January 2003, provincial governor Josiah Hungwe sent a 
letter to Malilangwe's Board of Directors demanding that two 
Zanu-PF connected Zimbabwean businessmen be co-opted into 
its Board of Directors.  The management at Malilangwe 
reportedly forwarded this demand to the Board of Trustees 
who have not taken any further action, although they 
perceive this as an attempt to strong-arm money and gain 
influence within the not-for-profit organization. 
 
¶17.  Save Conservancy is a 321,355 hectare project which is 
jointly owned by twenty-three landowners (including an 
Amcit) who have dedicated their properties to wildlife 
production and management.  Each property owner retains 
separate ownership, and each is allocated separate hunting 
quotas, although all internal fences have been removed in 
order to facilitate the free movement of animals between the 
properties.  Several of the constituent farms have been 
heavily invaded by settlers, and several have received 
either preliminary or final notices of GOZ acquisition under 
the Land Resettlement Program.  War veterans and other 
occupiers have declared at least five of the occupied 
properties along the outside borders "no-go" areas, and 
conservancy managers and game scouts cannot even estimate 
the losses on those properties.  The entire western game 
fence -- in excess of 80 km of fence, comprising 1280 km of 
wire -- has been cut down and transformed into wire snares, 
which now permeate parts of the conservancy.  Conservancy 
managers have documented the impact of occupation through 
overflight game counts and settler/hut/domestic animal 
counts, and have confirmed the inverse relationship between 
settler presence and wildlife presence, with almost no 
wildlife visible on the "no-go" farms.  Since August 2001, 
Save monitors have documented several thousand animals 
poached, over twenty thousand snares recovered, hundreds of 
poachers' dogs shot, and over a thousand poachers arrested - 
- without even taking into account the most heavily 
"settled" farms.  Characteristically, the largest animals -- 
elephant, buffalo, and rhino -- have been the least 
affected, while the "meat" animals -- impala, kudu, eland, 
warthog, wildebeest, zebra, and other small animals -- have 
been the most heavily poached. 
 
¶18.  It is interesting to note that the GOZ has consistently 
promised the publication of a "Wildlife-Based Plan for Land 
Resettlement," supposedly addressing the claims and needs of 
private conservancies, since the land invasions were first 
initiated by the government in 2000.  To date, no formal 
statement has been forthcoming, and private conservancies 
continue to struggle against the tide of occupation, extra- 
legal land grabs, and continued poaching. 
 
-------- 
COMMENT 
-------- 
 
¶19.  Conservationists note that natural resources are a 
safety net in hard times; it seems that the current hard 
times may have destroyed the resiliency of that net, at 
least from the wildlife perspective.  The bitter struggle 
between new land claimants and title-deed holders has left 
many animal populations completely unprotected and subject 
to random depredation.  While some specific segments of 
Zimbabwe's wildlife environment have been spared 
devastation, the environment as a whole has suffered damage 
which could take generations to repair.  It will be little 
consolation to a future GOZ to possess 500 black rhino, or 
100,000 elephants, if the ecology is so damaged that the 
land cannot sustain them.  Tourism is one of the engines 
which could pull Zimbabwe out of an economic morass -- but 
only if Zimbabwe retains attractions and infrastructure 
sufficient to catch the attention of tourists.  Continued 
destruction of wildlife resources could cause severe delays 
in the eventual recovery of the tourism sector. 
 
Sullivan