EMS Foundation

02/08/2026

CLARIFYING THE PROPOSED DESTRUCTION OF ELEPHANTS AT DINOKENG GAME RESERVE

The purpose of a letter sent the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Deputy Director of Dinokeng Game Reserve is to request certain information regarding the proposed killing of between one and four elephants in Dinokeng Game Reserve (DGR) as damage causing animals.

Furthermore to object to the killing from occurring until it has been shown that all applicable legislation has been complied with and that the killing is a last resort. The basis for this request is set out below.

READ FULL LETTER:

https://emsfoundation.org.za/clarifying-the-proposed-destruction-of-elephants-at-dinokeng-game-reserve/

28/07/2026

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE | 28 JULY 2026

COURT ORDER SECURES INTERIM LIMITS ON AVERSIVE BABOON-MANAGEMENT IN BETTY’S BAY⚖️

EMS Foundation welcomes an enforceable interim arrangement while Overstrand Municipality reviews and publishes its amended Strategic Baboon Management Plan.

The Western Cape High Court on 27 July 2026 made an order, by agreement between the EMS Foundation and Overstrand Municipality, regulating the active management of the Betty’s Bay baboon troop while the Municipality reviews its Strategic Baboon Management Plan (SBMP). CapeNature, the permitting authority, and the NSPCA, both cited as respondents in the litigation, did not oppose the relief sought in Part A, each having delivered a Notice to Abide.

The order provides meaningful interim protection while preserving the Municipality’s ability to respond to genuine threats. It also creates an opportunity for the future of baboon management in the Overstrand to be reconsidered on a more transparent, evidence-led and humane basis.

EMS did not approach the Court as a first resort. Since December 2022, the Foundation has repeatedly sought constructive engagement with the relevant authorities about the Overstrand’s baboon-management system. On 4 June 2026, EMS’s attorneys addressed a formal letter of demand to CapeNature and the Municipality. The application followed written confirmation by the Municipality’s own officials that procurement was under way to extend the full weapons-based suite, including paintball markers, to Betty’s Bay from July 2026; four days after the application was served, the Municipality published a three-year tender for baboon-management equipment closing 31 July 2026. When no satisfactory resolution was secured, EMS instituted the proceedings.

⚖️What the order provides
Pending finalisation of the Municipality’s SBMP review (inclusive of a public participation process), the existing active-management status quo for the Betty’s Bay troop will continue, including the use of gel blasters.
The Municipality has undertaken not to use any additional tools available to it under the SBMP – including paintball markers, pepper balls or pepper spray, bear bangers, strobe lights, water cannons, artificial light, drones or night operations – in Betty’s Bay, whether under its current CapeNature permits or any successive permits.

The order permits the use of an otherwise restricted authorised tool only where it is reasonably necessary to avert an imminent or actual threat of harm to persons, property, pets or baboons in Betty’s Bay.
The substantive review proceedings in Part B are postponed pending the Municipality’s review and publication of the amended SBMP. They have not been withdrawn. Costs remain reserved.

Any party may seek a variation or discharge of the order on good cause and on at least five court days’ written notice.

“An animal does not cease to matter because it crosses an invisible line into a town. The real question is not whether baboons should be managed, but whether public authorities manage sentient wildlife lawfully, humanely, transparently and on the best available evidence.”

⚖️ A careful and honest reading of the outcome
The order is an interim consent order. It does not determine the merits of the parties’ competing positions, and the Court did not declare any management method lawful or unlawful. The EMS Foundation’s acceptance of the interim arrangement should also not be understood as an endorsement of gel blasters or of the existing management system. EMS continues to have grave concerns about the welfare, ecological and governance consequences of aversive management.

EMS accepted a practical interim arrangement that immediately limits the routine deployment of a far wider suite of aversive “tools” while the foundational municipal strategy is reconsidered.

⚖️The review must be meaningful
The SBMP review should not become a paper exercise that leaves existing operational assumptions untouched. It should examine the methods by which the strategy is implemented, the evidence of their effects, the cumulative impact on baboon troops and communities, and the availability of less harmful alternatives.

Chacma baboons are intelligent, sentient primates that perform important ecological functions, including seed dispersal and nutrient cycling. They should not be treated merely as mobile nuisances at the urban edge.

Management must account for troop behaviour and social structure, habitat, historic ranging areas and movement corridors, as well as the human decisions that shape the urban-wildland interface.

For EMS, humane coexistence requires more than changing the management methodologies. It requires attention to waste and other attractants, land-use planning, ecological connectivity, community education, reliable incident data, independent expertise, animal well-being and meaningful participation by affected communities. Properly designed community-based monitoring can complement specialist research and help test whether management measures are working in practice.

Residents and visitors also share responsibility for coexistence. Securing homes, food sources and waste against baboon access, and avoiding feeding, reduces preventable conflict. No person should resort to unlawful action against baboons.

⚖️Why the existing model must be reconsidered
EMS’s case, supported by residents’ accounts and observations, raises serious concerns about the operation of the Adaptive Baboon Management Plan in Pringle Bay since May 2024. After more than two years, residents report that it has not achieved its stated objective of keeping baboons out of the urban area. EMS contends that the plan was not adequately grounded in research into troop behaviour and social dynamics, local ecology, natural foraging resources, historic ranging areas and essential movement corridors.

Residents’ observations further raise concern that the routine use of aversive “tools”, including paintball markers and bear bangers, may scatter troops and cause baboons to seek cover deeper within residential areas, potentially increasing opportunistic foraging and difficult encounters. Residents have also reported municipal personnel entering private properties without consent, while some residents and visitors have expressed alarm at the visible deployment of weapon-like devices in residential spaces.

Incidents involving the fatal shooting of baboons by members of the public have been reported in Pringle Bay, Betty’s Bay and Hermanus. EMS does not suggest that the Municipality carried out those shootings. Its concern is that a confrontational management environment may heighten fear, deepen intolerance and encourage unlawful individual responses. The disputed questions of cause and effect have not been finally determined by the Court; they are precisely the kind of questions that require independent scrutiny during the SBMP review.

A practical alternative for people, wildlife and the Western Cape Public debate about baboons has become deeply polarised. Some residents demand more forceful intervention; others strongly oppose aversive management. Politicians are repeatedly pressed to choose a side. But baboon management is not, and should never become, a popularity contest. The responsibility of government is to adopt a lawful, effective and evidence-led approach that protects people and property while respecting the well-being and ecological role of baboons.

Importantly, there is another way forward. A modern coexistence programme combines professionally trained and locally recruited field teams; early-warning and rapid-response services; practical support for household and municipal baboon-proofing; effective waste and attractant management; community education; ecological monitoring; veterinary and welfare capacity; protection of movement corridors; and transparent reporting against measurable outcomes. This is consistent with international best-practice principles, which favour integrated prevention, mitigation, response, research and monitoring developed with affected communities.

Such a programme has the potential to create meaningful local jobs and specialist skills while reducing risks to residents, visitors and baboons. It offers political leaders a route beyond a divisive and ultimately unproductive choice between competing community factions. Humane, compassionate, professional management can serve the shared interests of residents with very different views, and could establish the Western Cape as a leading example of innovative and compassionate urban-wildlife coexistence.

The Municipality has publicly committed itself to reviewing the SBMP. EMS will engage constructively with that process and will assess the amended plan when it is published. The Foundation reserves all its rights in the pending proceedings.

The EMS Foundation thanks the residents, community organisations, specialists and legal representatives whose work has kept the welfare of the Overstrand’s baboons, and the quality of public decision-making, firmly in view.


- ENDS -


https://emsfoundation.org.za/court-order-secures-interim-limits-on-aversive-baboon-management-in-bettys-bay/

25/07/2026

The article below, authored by Dr Howard Hendricks and Professor Sam Ferreira published in the Daily Maverick on the 23 July 2026 does not, in our opinion, sufficiently rebut the central argument presented by Dr Adam Cruise in his article published on the 9 July 2026 in the Daily Maverick.

Daily Maverick
SANParks Honorary Rangers
Kruger National Park

Instead Hendricks and Ferreira answer a different and narrower question: whether 951 recorded elephant deaths over six years threaten the numerical viability of Kruger’s elephant population.

Dr Cruise's was principally asking what specific protocols led to the 207 deaths categorized under 'Management,' and which officials authorized these interventions? Furthermore, were these actions necessary, lawful, and humane? Finally, what justified withholding these records from proactive disclosure, and why did SANParks substitute a basic mortality database for the comprehensive veterinary, operational, and decision-making records requested under PAIA?

What does this all this information mean in the context of renewed governmental discussion about “lethal control” and elephant culling?

SANParks’ population-level arithmetic does not answer any of these questions. Nevertheless its useful because it contains several important admissions and leaves the most consequential gaps untouched.

Hendricks and Ferreira argue that the 951 elephant deaths occurred over a six-year period rather than a single year, representing an average annual mortality rate of just 0.4% of the total population. Management-related deaths, which accounted for 207 cases, made up less than 0.1% annually and were the result of welfare interventions for individual injuries, snaring, conflict, or disease rather than an organized population-reduction program. Backed by the fact that the broader elephant population has continued to grow, they maintain that these figures demonstrate that management actions pose no threat to the species' survival.

In our opinion, the obvious flaw in rebuttal argument presented by Hendricks and Ferreira is treating a small fraction of the total elephant population as a definitive answer. The questions posed by Cruise are not answered by illustrating that Kruger has many elephants.

The legality, necessity and welfare implications of killing an elephant do not disappear because the individual represents less than 0.1% of a population. The percentage argument is particularly inadequate, in our opinion, because the content of the rebuttal argument is completely silent on critical details. It fails to mention the circumstances of the deaths, whether non-lethal alternatives were considered, or what protocols were followed.

Furthermore, it provides no data on the age and s*x of the animals killed, the social consequences of these actions, whether veterinarians were consulted, and how these decisions were audited.

A government conservation authority cannot answer a request for decision-level accountability merely by supplying a population denominator.

SANParks has republished Hendricks and Ferreira's article signally their agreement with the contents, in other words SANParks is now publicly offering an explanation that the 207 deaths were management interventions and were not part of a population-reduction programme. That explanation is important, but it raises further questions.

The term “Management” was plainly too broad to enable meaningful public scrutiny. If it includes responses to snares, injuries, disease, human-elephant conflict, boundary incursions and other situations, the records should have been disaggregated accordingly.

Furthermore, in our opinion, the general narrative provided by the authors omits several critical data points: subcategory metrics, individual clinical and intervention histories, and the identity of the authorizing official. Additionally, it lacks documentation regarding standard operating procedures, alternative strategies, justifications for lethal intervention, post-action reports, and relevant institutional oversight.

Describing a death as necessary does not establish that it was necessary. The records capable of substantiating that conclusion remain essential. SANParks’ article therefore supplies an institutional assurance where what we want is documentary evidence.

SANParks’ own numbers support concern, not complacency. The 179 illegal deaths are nearly as significant numerically as the 207 management deaths. They represent approximately 19% of all records. This situation exposes critical flaws in boundary security and law enforcement, alongside rising concerns over snaring, poaching, and firearm incidents. It also demands an analysis of six-year trends, the spatial concentration of these deaths, and whether certain elephant communities face a higher risk. SANParks is trying to reframe public outrage as a need for "perspective." However, real perspective requires facing a stark reality: nearly 20% of all recorded elephant deaths were illegal.

SANParks is correct that the 951 records span six years and do not, by themselves, demonstrate a declining elephant population. That was not the question raised. The question is why 207 elephants were intentionally killed through management interventions, what precise circumstances justified each intervention, who authorised them, what alternatives were considered, and why the underlying records remain undisclosed. Expressing those deaths as a small percentage of a large population cannot answer questions of legality, necessity, welfare or public accountability.

In short SANParks has supplied perspective, but not proof. Its article makes the dataset sound less alarming at population level, while leaving the central governance and elephant-wellbeing questions substantially unanswered.

Behind Kruger National Park’s stark elephant mortality figures lies a complex reality of thriving populations, natural life cycles, and the difficult balance between conservation and human safety.

09/07/2026

951 DEAD ELEPHANTS IN THE KRUGER NATIONAL PARK AND A QUESTION EVERY SOUTH AFRICAN SHOULD BE ASKING.

“The grudging release of previously undisclosed mortality data from the Kruger National Park offers a rare glimpse into how elephants are dying. But the numbers reveal something else: how little the public knows about the decisions made in managing one of the world's most important elephant populations.

That debate has often centred on numbers. Are there too many elephants? Are they transforming woodlands? Should populations be controlled? Should culling ever return? These questions have divided scientists, conservationists and policymakers for decades.

What has received remarkably little public attention is a different question: how many elephants actually die in Kruger every year, and why?

These figures entered the public domain only after a formal request was submitted under the Promotion of Access to Information Act in March 2026.

Four months later SANParks has provided only a partial response, with significant portions of the requested information still outstanding.

Of those recorded deaths, 535 were classified as natural mortalities, while 179 resulted from illegal causes, primarily snares and gunshots. Both findings are perhaps unsurprising. Kruger supports one of Africa's largest free-ranging elephant populations, and deaths from old age, drought, disease and natural conflict are expected. Likewise, despite significant anti-poaching efforts, illegal killing remains an ever-present reality.

But another figure deserves far greater scrutiny. The database records 207 elephant deaths under the category "Management".
Were these elephants euthanised after catastrophic injuries? Destroyed because they posed an immediate danger to people?

Classified as problem animals following repeated conflict? Put down for veterinary reasons? Managed under specific ecological interventions? The records do not say.”

READ THE FULL ARTICLE Daily Maverick

The grudging release of previously undisclosed mortality data from the Kruger National Park offers a rare glimpse into how elephants are dying. But the numbers reveal something else: how little the public knows about the decisions made in managing one of the world’s most important elephant populations.

04/07/2026

EMS Foundation Warns Diedericks Rhino Horn Trade Judgement Could Fundamentally Weaken Rhino Protections

STATEMENT
4 July 2026

The EMS Foundation strongly opposes South African rhino breeder Hendrick Diedericks legal efforts to export hundreds of rhino horns. We view his litigation and requested captive-breeding exemptions as a perilous attempt to circumvent international trade bans and reopen backdoor commercial markets. We are of the view that commercialising his stockpiles will likely stimulate consumer demand, weaken anti-trafficking enforcement, and ultimately fuel rampant poaching of rhinos in the wild.

The EMS Foundation is deeply concerned by the Northern Cape High Court's recent refusal of the Government's application for leave to appeal in the Hendrick Diedericks matter. While the decision concerns one private rhino breeder, its implications extend far beyond a single case. If allowed to stand, the judgment may create a significant loophole in South Africa's carefully regulated system governing international trade in endangered species.

At the heart of the dispute is not merely whether one individual may export hundreds of rhino horns. It is whether South African law now permits a new pathway for commercial exports through an interpretation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) that has never previously been recognised by our courts or consistently applied by government.

The Foundation is equally concerned about the broader conservation consequences.

This is not a technical legal issue. It has profound implications for international confidence in South Africa's implementation of CITES, for efforts to combat wildlife trafficking, and for the future conservation of one of the world's most threatened species.

The EMS Foundation rejects the proposition that expanding commercial markets for rhino horn represents a sustainable conservation strategy. Creating new legal avenues for international trade risks stimulating demand, complicating enforcement, increasing laundering opportunities and undermining decades of international efforts to reduce illegal trade.

Internationally, buyers face domestic import bans in major consumer nations like Vietnam and China. A major flashpoint has emerged around these shipments. For instance, 479 of the 502 horns in the Diedericks case were earmarked for Canada, a country with little to no domestic demand, sparking international watchdog fears that it is simply being used as a transit route to Asia.

The Court's refusal of leave to appeal should not be interpreted as resolving these broader legal and policy questions.

The EMS Foundation therefore calls on David Maynier, the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment to carefully consider every remaining legal avenue available to protect South Africa's biodiversity obligations and to prevent the creation of a precedent that could significantly weaken national and international controls over the commercial trade in rhino horn.

South Africa’s conservation reputation should not now be placed at risk by one judicial interpretation that could fundamentally alter the country's obligations under CITES and its own biodiversity legislation.



https://emsfoundation.org.za/ems-foundation-warns-diedericks-rhino-horn-trade-judgment-could-fundamentally-weaken-rhino-protections/

03/07/2026

MEDIA STATEMENT
3 July 2026

EMS FOUNDATION APPROACHES HIGH COURT OVER WEAPONS-BASED BABOON MANAGEMENT IN THE OVERSTRAND

The EMS Foundation has instituted proceedings in the Western Cape High Court after efforts to resolve concerns regarding the use of weapons-based baboon management methods through legal correspondence proved unsuccessful.

On 4 June 2026, attorneys acting on behalf of the Foundation addressed a detailed Letter of Demand to both CapeNature and the Overstrand Municipality. The Foundation sought undertakings that no additional coercive or weapons-based baboon management methods would be introduced in Betty's Bay pending a lawful, transparent and publicly accountable review of the applicable management framework.

The Foundation further requested that wildlife management continue to be undertaken in a manner consistent with South Africa's constitutional values, environmental legislation and humane conservation principles.

Following receipt of the Foundation's legal correspondence, the Overstrand Municipality publicly announced on the 9 June 2026 that it intended reviewing its baboon management framework. While the Foundation welcomed that announcement, no undertaking was provided that additional weapons-based management methods would be suspended while that review takes place.

In those circumstances, and in the absence of the undertakings sought, the EMS Foundation approached the High Court for appropriate relief.
The Foundation wishes to emphasise that these proceedings are not directed against responsible baboon management. Rather, they seek to ensure that decisions affecting both wildlife and communities are taken lawfully, transparently and in accordance with constitutional principles, proper public participation and sound environmental governance.

The Foundation is concerned that increasingly coercive interventions are being normalised before their legality, necessity and appropriateness have been properly scrutinised through lawful public processes. Wildlife management decisions that affect sentient wild animals, local communities and the public interest must be based on sound science, humane principles and accountable decision-making.

The application raises important issues concerning the exercise of statutory powers by public authorities, the lawful management of human-wildlife interactions, and the standards of accountability expected of conservation authorities and municipalities.

As the matter is now before the High Court, and out of respect for the judicial process, the EMS Foundation will not comment further on the substantive legal issues that will be determined by the Court.
END


https://emsfoundation.org.za/ems-foundation-approaches-high-court-over-weapons-based-baboon-management-in-the-overstrand/

25/06/2026

Mail & Guardian

The EMS Foundation report "Where Have All the Rhinos Gone?" details the history of Dawie Groenewald, who is described as allegedly being the mastermind behind a massive syndicate who was allegedly involved in rhino poaching and trafficking.

Over the last sixteen years, after his 2010 arrest, his legal team have used continuous postponements, technical applications, and jurisdictional challenges to delay his trial where he was initially facing more than 1,700 criminal charges.

The National Prosecuting Authority faced severe hurdles proving intent in this case because legal domestic markets blur the line between regulated commerce and transnational organized crime.

Ultimately Dawie Groenewald avoided immediate jail time by securing a non-custodial financial penalty this month.

A separate criminal case regarding the 19 rhino horns intercepted in Mbombela which the EMS Foundation investigation linked to leaked government stockpiles remains an active, entirely distinct legal matter.

This case against Dawie Groenewald and Schalk "AB" Steyn is scheduled to resume on 24 August 2026 has also suffered similar delays in the Nelspruit Regional Court due to ongoing pre-trial applications and challenges made by their legal team.

Megan Carr, senior researcher for the EMS Foundation says: “If the defense can continue to stretch out proceedings, they can argue that Groenewald’s constitutional right to a speedy trial has been infringed under Section 35(3)(a) of the South African Constitution. If the court finds the unreasonable delay is the fault of the state, it could grant a permanent stay of prosecution, throwing the case out entirely.””

After more than 15 years, hunting safari operator Dawie Groenewald, described as the mastermind behind the world's largest rhino horn trafficking investigation, has been convicted and sentenced in South Africa, bringing a landmark wildlife crime prosecution to a close.

17/06/2026

DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE CABINET SHAKE-UP

Wednesday 17 June 2026

David Maynier moves from education to environment in DA cabinet shake-up - David Maynier has been appointed as the new Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, a move welcomed by conservation and animal welfare organisations - Mail & Guardian

“Minister Willie Aucamp's departure closes a troubling chapter for South Africa's environment sector.

No Environment Minister should be burdened by questions of conflicts of interest, ideological bias, or alignment with industries that profit from the exploitation of nature.

We look forward to working with the next incumbent and hope for leadership guided by science, constitutional values, biodiversity protection, and the public interest.
South Africa's wildlife deserves better.” - EMS Foundation

Democratic Alliance
Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis
Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment
The Wildlife Animal Protection Forum South Africa

David Maynier has been appointed as the new Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, a move welcomed by conservation and animal welfare organisations hoping for a renewed relationship with civil society. Maynier, previously Western Cape's education MEC, takes over a portfolio covering cr...

09/06/2026

EMS FOUNDATION STATEMENT ON THE NATIONAL ELEPHANT HERITAGE STRATEGY (2026–2036)

The EMS Foundation is deeply concerned that South Africa's National Elephant Heritage Strategy fails to recognise elephants as sentient beings with intrinsic value and instead continues to frame them primarily through a utilitarian lens as assets within a biodiversity economy.

The Strategy remains rooted in an anthropocentric approach that prioritises human interests, economic benefit-sharing and sustainable-use objectives, while largely ignoring elephant well-being, welfare, social complexity and the growing body of South African jurisprudence recognising the legal significance of animal sentience and intrinsic value.

This omission is particularly troubling given that South African law has evolved significantly over the past two decades. Our courts, including the Constitutional Court, have recognised that animals are sentient beings capable of suffering, that they possess intrinsic value beyond their utility to humans, and that animal welfare and biodiversity conservation are intertwined constitutional concerns.

South African jurisprudence has moved beyond a narrow conservation model focused solely on population numbers towards one that increasingly recognises the well-being and interests of individual animals. Yet the Elephant Heritage Strategy largely ignores these legal developments and continues to treat elephants primarily as units of management, economic assets and components of a biodiversity economy.

Of particular concern is the Strategy's expanded emphasis on human-elephant conflict, adaptive management interventions and the normalisation of management tools such as culling. While the Strategy does not itself authorise culling, it creates a policy framework that may facilitate future lethal management measures and further commodification of elephants.

The EMS Foundation also rejects any suggestion that the outcomes of the 2025 Elephant Indaba reflected broad consensus among stakeholders. The Indaba was not a formal public participation process, nor did it provide a balanced, transparent or inclusive platform for meaningful engagement on the future of elephant governance in South Africa. Significant differences of opinion remained unresolved, particularly regarding elephant well-being, sentience, welfare obligations, sustainable use, culling and the treatment of elephants as economic resources. The resolutions emerging from the Indaba should therefore not be portrayed as representing a national consensus on elephant management or as providing a mandate for future policy reforms.

South Africa's elephant governance framework must be guided by constitutional principles, scientific integrity, precaution, transparency and respect for the lives and well-being of individual elephants. It must also be aligned with South Africa's evolving jurisprudence, which increasingly recognises that wildlife are not merely biological resources or economic commodities, but sentient beings whose well-being matters.

The EMS Foundation remains committed to advocating for an approach that recognises elephants not merely as populations to be managed or resources to be utilised, but as highly intelligent, socially complex and sentient beings whose interests matter in their own right.

https://emsfoundation.org.za/ems-foundation-statement-on-the-national-elephant-heritage-strategy-2026-2036/

©️EMS Foundation 2026