THE GREAT ELEPHANT INDABA Berg-en-Dal 19-21 October 2004 SANParks Discussion 21 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 Mission � Principles needed to draw up Plan � KNP science and data � Management options for the Plan � Individual Park plans � Conclusion
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 & ETHICS � ENVIRONMENTAL � SOCIAL � ECONOMIC � POLITICAL � TECHNOLOGICAL
Values, ethics & approaches � Population and ecosystem approach and the interests of neighbours differ from individual animal rights – we would appreciate inputs here, as mentioned repeatedly yesterday � Shifting 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
SANParks mission KNP mission Biodiversity Balancing Tourism & Enabling other human To maintain By agreeing on a desired 1 set of future To provide cross-cutting support biodiversity in all its conditions to strive for, and by developing an services which enable KNP to benefits natural facets and adequate set of principles and appropriate achieve the line function fluxes approaches, to balance human activities and biodiversity and people objectives, To provide for tourism development inside and around the KNP, and balance these effectively. and other human benefits with the need to conserve ecosystem NB : must be cross-linked to; and is and build a strong integrity and wilderness qualities. A holistic subject to growth depending on constituency, preserving view will be strived for, of an integrated further demands from the other as far as possible the socio-ecological system. 1 (necessarily Ecosystem objective Legal & Statutory three wilderness qualities and environmentally fluctuating) cultural resources associated with the Park Financial resources Communication Infrastructure Human Resources Sustainable Utilization Desired state Research especially Socio-ecological Integrated Environmental Mgt ethic Strategic Adaptive Mgt action Tourism Constituency Building Cultural Heritage Wilderness Direct Human benefits
Political - Legal � New (esp. Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003; Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004) with clear accountability � Why 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 ago � However, 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 removed � Fence maintenance an issue, esp. Kruger (500 km of fence with a multitude of streams and drainage lines).
Social and economic: potential benefits of sustainable use � Well discussed yesterday � If 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 & Economic: Impact on Tourism � 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 this � Visitors’ expectations constrain removal of artificial waterholes � High elephant populations associated with higher rate of visitor-elephant incidents � Possible threat of tourism boycott if culling proceeds - considered unlikely
What SANParks means by the word “Biodiversity” (Noss)
Environmental : Influence on biodiversity � 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/
… 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 1995 Localized 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 6 5 No. of species 4 3 2 1 0 Reserve Elephant Livestock From Moolman and Cowling, Biological Conservation
Varied elephant impact needed to accommodate different species � At low elephant densities, disturbance- sensitive species thrive � At high densities, disturbance-tolerant species thrive � We 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 fluctuations � Current 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 management � At any one time, about 150 research projects active (all fields) � Known for long-term datasets; host organisation for first SAEON site in South Africa � Known 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 differ � But as always, still gaps and room for improvement
RAINFALL CYCLES OF THE KRUGER NATIONAL PARK 300 % OF LONG-TERM MEAN (OR NORMAL) RAINFALL ABUNDANT RAIN 250 125 ABOVE-AVERAGE AVERAGE (NORMAL) % 100 BELOW-AVERAGE 200 75 DROUGHT-STRICKEN 150 100 50 WET DRY WET DRY WET DRY WET DRY WET 0 29/30 11/12 19/20 39/40 49/50 59/60 69/70 79/80 89/90 99/00 YEAR
KNP ELEPHANT POPULATI KNP ELEPHA NT POPULATION TRENDS: 1903 - ON TRENDS: 1903 - 2004 2004 12 12 11 11 2004 CENSUS TOTAL: 11 454 10 10 MO MORATORIUM ON CULLING IN 1994 RATORIUM ON CULLING IN 1994 IMATE (X 1000) POPULATION ESTIMATE (X 1000) 9 UPPER "ACCEPTABLE" LIMIT: 8 500 8 POLICY BETWEEN 1967 & 1994 7 POPULATION CEILING: 7 000 Period of elephant culling (1967 - 1994) 6 LOWER "ACCEPTABLE" LIMIT: 6 000 POPULATION E 5 ANNUAL CENSUSES AND CULLING INITIATED 1967 4 MORE LIKELY POPULATION GROWTH (NATURAL INCREASES AND IMMIGRATION) 3 2 1 POPULATION GROWTH ACCORDING TO ESTIMATES 0 19 1900 00 19 1910 10 19 1920 20 1930 19 30 19 1940 40 1950 19 50 19 1960 60 19 1970 70 1980 19 80 1990 19 90 20 2000 00 YEA YEAR OF POPULATION ESTIMATE OF POPULATION ESTIMATE
Early on, evidence of large tree reduction TREES / HA ELEPHANT NUMBERS SATARA AREA: 1944 - 1981 3 000 2 000 1 000 0 1981 1974 (1.5/Ha) (3/Ha) 5 1965 10 (9/Ha) 1944 (13/Ha) 15 1940 1950 1960 1980 1970 YEAR
The average trend in tall trees >5m Number of individuals 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1977 1990 2002 Year
1977 Fixed point photos: Satara, Kruger National Park Disappearance of Marulas and Knobthorns over a 25-year 2002 period
Recommend
More recommend
