THE GREAT ELEPHANT INDABA Berg-en-Dal

19-21 October 2004

SANParks Discussion21 October 2004

The role of SANParks

It is not the function of the wildlife manager to make the necessary value judgments any more than it is within the competence of a general to declare war. However, when it comes to deciding which management options are feasible, once the goal is set, wildlife managers deal with testable facts, and should know whether current knowledge is sufficient to allow a technical decision or whether further research is needed (Caughley & Sinclair 1994).

Outline

SANParks MissionPrinciples needed to draw up PlanKNP science and dataManagement options for the PlanIndividual Park plansConclusion

SANParks Mission

To acquire and manage a system of national parks which represents the indigenous wildlife, vegetation, landscapes and significant cultural assets of South Africa for the pride and benefit of the nation

Key Principles which SANParks believes should be used in formulating the plan

VALUES & ETHICSENVIRONMENTALSOCIALECONOMICPOLITICALTECHNOLOGICAL

Population and ecosystem approach and the interests of neighbours differ from individual animal rights – we would appreciate inputs here, as mentioned repeatedly yesterdayShifting scientific paradigms – we lean towards the modern notions of an ever-changing, complex and increasingly uncertain world, but believe it must be tied to ‘natural’ processes. Therefore: adaptive management and learning by doing.Not only biodiversity values but also aesthetic needs of tourists as related to the ‘desired state’ they wish to see in the set of parks – individual park objectives are then set accordingly – see next slide

Values, ethics & approaches

SANParks mission

KNP mission

BiodiversityTo maintain

biodiversity in all its natural facets and

fluxes

BalancingBy agreeing on a desired1 set of future conditions to strive for, and by developing an adequate set of principles and appropriate approaches, to balance human activities and development inside and around the KNP, with the need to conserve ecosystem integrity and wilderness qualities. A holistic view will be strived for, of an integrated socio-ecological system. 1 (necessarily environmentally fluctuating)

Ecos

yste

m o

bjec

tive

Lega

l & S

tatu

tory

Tourism & other human

benefitsTo provide for tourism

and other human benefits and build a strong

constituency, preserving as far as possible the

wilderness qualities and cultural resources

associated with the Park

Tour

ism

Con

stitu

ency

Bui

ldin

g

Cul

tura

l Her

itage

Wild

erne

ss

Dire

ct H

uman

ben

efits

EnablingTo provide cross-cutting support services which enable KNP to

achieve the line function biodiversity and people objectives,

and balance these effectively.

NB : must be cross-linked to; and is subject to growth depending on further demands from the other

three

Com

mun

icat

ion

Infra

stru

ctur

e

Hum

an R

esou

rces

Fina

ncia

l res

ourc

es

Sust

aina

ble

Util

izat

ion

Des

ired

stat

e

Inte

grat

ed E

nviro

nmen

tal

Mgt

eth

ic

Stra

tegi

c Ad

aptiv

e M

gt a

ctio

n

Res

earc

h es

peci

ally

Soc

io-e

colo

gica

l

Political - Legal

New (esp. Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003; Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004) with clear accountabilityWhy was the Kruger elephant policy not implemented in 1999?CITES issues also form a relevant global political backdrop.Any potential legal contention concerning culling may be interrelated to & overshadowed by the legal biodiversity imperative and obligation to neighbours(in terms of rationality & proportionality)

Technological

Practical contraception in elephant could hardly have been dreamed of a decade agoHowever, SANParks have not finalized a stand on contraception – though for various reasons it is very unlikely in Kruger

Social and Economic: Impact on neighbouring communities

As discussed thoroughly yesterday, fence breakages lead to damage outside, also by buffalo and predators. Associated disease risks are significant.Institutional confusion leads to delays in these animals being shot or removedFence maintenance an issue, esp. Kruger (500 km of fence with a multitude of streams and drainage lines).

Well discussed yesterdayIf culling must be conducted for ecological reasons, it can yield profitable products. Communities can also benefit from trophy hunting in areas adjacent to parks

Social and economic: potential benefits of sustainable use

Experience of visitors depends on expectations, usually “Big 5”However, many visitors are disappointed by the tree loss and “devastated landscapes” and usually blame management for thisVisitors’ expectations constrain removal of artificial waterholesHigh elephant populations associated with higher rate of visitor-elephant incidentsPossible threat of tourism boycott if culling proceeds - considered unlikely

Social & Economic: Impact on Tourism

What SANParks means by the word “Biodiversity” (Noss)

Elephants can promote biodiversity or cause biodiversity losses, depending on circumstances, and scale.In confined parks, where dispersion is not possible, high risk is more likely.Because of ecosystem complexity and some consequent uncertainty, decisions need to be based on risk assessments.

… continued/

Environmental : Influence on biodiversity

… influence on biodiversity (cont’d)

The carrying capacity concept in livestock management has little meaning in the context of biodiversity – Kruger moved away from fixed numbers in 1995Localized high elephant impact is important to maintain biodiversity but not everywhere all the time.Loss of endemics: clear example from Addo

No. of endemic plant species

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Reserve Elephant Livestock

From Moolman and Cowling, Biological Conservation

No. of s

pecies

Varied elephant impact needed to accommodate different species

At low elephant densities, disturbance-sensitive species thriveAt high densities, disturbance-tolerant species thriveWe need the full spectrum

Past Natural state

Trying to pin down a single past state (“snapshot”) of the environment as the benchmark is unrealistic -constant change and cycles cause fluctuationsCurrent conditions may have established after rinderpest and ivory hunting era but could still be within a ‘normal cycle’. Before that, there were estimated to be 16 000 iron age people in Kruger (circa 1800) - this may already have led to lower elephant numbers.Risk of permanent loss of species much higher than in previous cycles - diminishing habitats for rare species as result of human development

Science initiatives and data from Kruger and other parks with elephant

Kruger has a long and intensive research tradition, with major outside involvement esp. in the last decade. Elephant are the most researched species, 370 references.Well-acclaimed science book published in 2003. The chapter on elephant cites 17 significant peer-reviewed elephant publications relevant to KNP elephant managementAt any one time, about 150 research projects active (all fields)Known for long-term datasets; host organisation for first SAEON site in South AfricaKnown for well-developed ‘cutting-edge’ adaptive management, hailed as progressive by outsiders. Large and comprehensive elephant exclosures built at two sites in 2002.Addo has respectable research record, emergent projects at Marakele and Mapungubwe – where circumstances differBut as always, still gaps and room for improvement

11/12 19/20 29/30 39/40 49/50 59/60 69/70 79/80 89/90

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

% O

F LO

NG

-TER

M M

EAN

(OR

NO

RM

AL) R

AIN

FALL

YEAR

99/00

100

125

75

%

ABUNDANT RAIN

ABOVE-AVERAGEAVERAGE (NORMAL)

BELOW-AVERAGE

DROUGHT-STRICKEN

RAINFALL CYCLES OF THE KRUGER NATIONAL PARK

WET DRY WET WETDRY DRY WET WETDRY

ANNUAL CENSUSES ANDCULLING INITIATED 1967

POPULATION GROWTHACCORDING TO ESTIMATES

MORE LIKELY POPULATION GROWTH(NATURAL INCREASES AND IMMIGRATION)

POPULATION CEILING: 7 000

KNP ELEPHANT POPULATION TRENDS: 1903 - 2004

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

PO

PU

LAT

ION

ES

TIM

AT

E (

X 1

000)

YEAR OF POPULATION ESTIMATE2000

UPPER "ACCEPTABLE" LIMIT: 8 500

LOWER "ACCEPTABLE" LIMIT: 6 000

2004 CENSUS TOTAL: 11 45411

MORATORIUM ON CULLING IN 1994

12

Period of elephant culling(1967 - 1994)

POLICY BETWEEN 1967 & 1994

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

0

1 000

2 000

3 000

5

10

15

TREE

S / H

A

E

LEPH

AN

T N

UM

BER

S

YEAR

1944

1965

19741981

(13/Ha)

(9/Ha)

(3/Ha)(1.5/Ha)

Early on, evidence of large tree reduction SATARA AREA: 1944 - 1981

0200400600800

10001200

1977 1990 2002

Year

Nu

mb

er

of

ind

ivid

ual

sThe average trend in tall trees >5m

1977

2002

Fixed point photos: Satara, Kruger National Park

Disappearance of Marulas and Knobthorns over a 25-year period

How widespread is the impact on tall trees?

Of the 60 sites observed:

2 sites experienced net increase in tall trees (> 5m tall),

9 sites experienced no change and

49 sites experienced net decrease.

Elephant female strips bark

Effect of fire on tree with bark removed

Fence line contrasts at Roan Camp 2004 (Erected in 1967)

Natural water & active boreholes

Policy adaptations for surface water

Elephant Density Index (DI) at increasing distance from artificial waterholes (blue) and main rivers (red) on basalt (solid) and granite (dashed) parent geology (standard error bars included)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 2 4 6 8 10

Distance to closest artificial waterhole (blue) and main river (red) (km)

DI

Basalt_average(1987-1993): Artificial waterhole Granite_average(1987-1993): Artificial waterholeBasalt_average(1987-1993): River Granite_average(1987-1993): River

Elephant density index (DI) at increasing distances from artificial waterholes (blue) and main rivers (red) – Analysisfrom Smit, Izak

Environment: lessons from other parks

Chobe and Tsavo discussed yesterday. Please do not forget Amboseli! (next 2 slides) - but delegates stressed that results from one site cannot simply be extrapolated thoughtlessly to any other site

Amboseli (1994)

Extinct!CommonGerenuk

Extinct!CommonBushbuck

Extinct!CommonLesser kudu

3002 500Baboon

Vagrant200Giraffe

NowBeforeSpecies

AMBOSELI’S POPULATION TRENDS

From Western et al

Reaching a Holistic decision

Based not only on environmental, but the full range of considerations discussed aboveAttainable Park objectives need to be agreed upon with stakeholdersStakeholders will have different value systems, hence there may still be multiple perspectives on potential elephant impactThe potential risks must be managed in a pro-active manner, using but not abusingthe precautionary principle

Possible Interventions (these can often be used in combination)

Increased areaTranslocationCullingContraceptionHuntingFencingMigration corridorsDo nothing (laissez-faire).

Intervention Options- Increased Area

Limitations well-discussed yesterdayIn Mozambique section of GLTP- the concerns regarding impact on communities is limiting ability to allow elephant movement. Large water-free areas in winterMapungubwe: elephant influx expected when fence comes downSystem of conservancies and private reserves next to KNP allows some back-and- forth movement

Intervention Options - Translocation

Little suitable habitat within South Africa left to which to translocate elephant

The transfrontier parks offer limited possibilities but there are major constraints.

– Impacts on local communities; consultation is required.– Translocated elephants return if not prevented.– Very expensive to do on a large scale.

Intervention Options - Contraception

Very well discussed yesterday:

Costs and benefits were questioned by several people

Long-term sustainability & funding questionable

Genetic (loss of heterozygosity?) and ethical considerations (population age strata and behavioural effects) may be serious

No interest from local communities

As discussed earlier in presentation, SANParks still has to formulate its position.

Intervention Options - Fencing

Discussed yesterday as only a short-term holding action (especially for small patches of sensitive plants)Continued maintenance and patrolling costlyNot satisfactory for biodiversity conservation, a high risk of extinction of isolated species

Migration corridors

As dealt with in first talk & discussions yesterday;Breaks away from limitations in considering single parks only;TFCA initiatives already contribute to thisSANParks considers this a long-term possibility worth investigating further

Intervention Options - Culling

Yesterday this dominated the debate in spite of requests to the contrary.

Marked differences in opinion on ethical acceptabilityEffective at reducing and maintaining elephant population without permanent effect on elephant growth rate, though some concerns were notedProven history of sustainable useBenefits for surrounding communitiesPossible tourism boycott, deemed unlikely

Intervention Options - Hunting

As evident from yesterday:

No formal requests to hunt in National ParksCommunities benefit from hunting in buffer areas eg CAMPFIRE

Intervention Options – Laissez faire

This can be a chosen management policy as practiced by Kenya.SANParks through lack of decision making finds itself in this position for last 5 yearsCould have serious risks for biodiversity and livelihoods of neighboursSouth Africa still has the option of not becoming locked into the “elephants & dust” scenario (Chobe)

For Kruger Park the unimplemented 1999 policy still seems the most viable overall optionThis is not surprising as it was based on strategic ecological theory and successfully went through a full public review process. It is also well-integrated with other management policies in Kruger ParkFor other national parks elephant plans are still being revised in terms of new circumstances (Addo) or under development (newer parks)

Individual Park Plans

Proposed Management Plan: Kruger National Park

Kruger Elephant Management Plan based on differential zonationLow-impact zones will most likely require culling due to infeasibility of other optionsHowever, the “Elephant haven” over half of Kruger Park will test non-intervention in our regionAimed at producing a range of impacts over space and timeBelieved to be the best strategy to mitigate risks to biodiversity and to neighboursImportantly, allows us to learn through adaptive management

Limpopo R.

Luvuvhu R.

Mutale R. PAFURI

PUNDA MARIA

MALELANE

CROCODILEBRIDGE

Crocodile R.

Sabie R.

Sand R.

PRETORIUSKOP

SKUKUZA

LOWERSABIE

TSHOKWANE

ORPENNWANETSI

Nwaswitsonso

TimbavatiSweni

SATARA

Mbyamiti

OLIFANTS

LETABAPHALABORWA

Olifants R.

MAHLANGENILetaba R.

KleinLetaba

SHANGONI SHINGWEDZIShingwedzi

Bububu

Phugwane

Mphongolo

Tsende

HIGH ELEPHANTIMPACT ZONE

LOW ELEPHANTIMPACT AREA

HIGH ELEPHANTIMPACT ZONE

LOW ELEPHANTIMPACT ZONE

BERG-EN-DAL

MOOIPLAAS

C:\FLCOLOUR\ELPOLICY

SHINGWEDZI COMPLEX

LETABA/OLIFANTS

CENTRAL DISTRICT

SOUTHERN

SOUTH-WESTERN BOTANICAL RESERVE(LOWVELD SOUR/MALELANE MOUNTAIN BUSHVELD)

(PUNDA MARIA SANDVELD/PAFURI/NWAMBIA)NORTHERN BOTANICAL RESERVE

KRUGER NATIONAL PARKFOR THE PURPOSES OF

ZONATION OF THE

ELEPHANT MANAGEMENT

The broader context – compatible land use, communal & intensive agricultural landscapes

Addo, Marakele, Mapungubwe NPs

Risk of biodiversity loss considered higher in these smaller parksToo small to consider differential zones in any other way than fenced-off areasOptions for manipulation of elephant populations are still being consideredLand acquisition in Addo will buy timeVery challenging to induce differential impacts over space & time in small parks, yet this may be essential if modern ecological theory correct (total removal & reintroduction every 20-30 years??)

Conclusion

SANParks, as managing authority, is responsible for consequences No perfect solution, we will have to make trade offs to mitigate risksWe need a diversity of management approachesWe must be prepared to learn by doing

THANK YOU