SANParks Discussion 21 October 2004 The role of SANParks It is not - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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

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

• f 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

Biodiversity

To maintain biodiversity in all its natural facets and fluxes

Balancing

By 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)

Ecosystem objective Legal & Statutory

Tourism &

• ther human

benefits

To 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

Tourism Constituency Building Cultural Heritage Wilderness Direct Human benefits

Enabling

To 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

Communication Infrastructure Human Resources Financial resources Sustainable Utilization Desired state Integrated Environmental Mgt ethic Strategic Adaptive Mgt action Research especially Socio-ecological

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).

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 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 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

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 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

1 2 3 4 5 6 Reserve Elephant Livestock From Moolman and Cowling, Biological Conservation

• No. of species

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”)

• f 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

• utside 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

11/12 19/20 29/30 39/40 49/50 59/60 69/70 79/80 89/90 50 100 150 200 250 300

% OF LONG-TERM MEAN (OR NORMAL) RAINFALL YEAR

99/00

100 125 75 % ABUNDANT RAIN ABOVE-AVERAGE AVERAGE (NORMAL) BELOW-AVERAGE DROUGHT-STRICKEN

RAINFALL CYCLES OF THE KRUGER NATIONAL PARK

WET DRY WET WET DRY DRY WET WET DRY

ANNUAL CENSUSES AND CULLING INITIATED 1967 POPULATION GROWTH ACCORDING TO ESTIMATES MORE LIKELY POPULATION GROWTH (NATURAL INCREASES AND IMMIGRATION) POPULATION CEILING: 7 000

KNP ELEPHA KNP ELEPHANT POPULATI NT POPULATION TRENDS: 1903 - ON TRENDS: 1903 - 2004 2004

19 1900 00 19 1910 10 19 1920 20 19 1930 30 19 1940 40 19 1950 50 19 1960 60 19 1970 70 19 1980 80 19 1990 90 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

POPULATION E POPULATION ESTIMATE (X 1000) IMATE (X 1000) YEA YEAR OF POPULATION ESTIMATE OF POPULATION ESTIMATE

20 2000 00 UPPER "ACCEPTABLE" LIMIT: 8 500 LOWER "ACCEPTABLE" LIMIT: 6 000

2004 CENSUS TOTAL: 11 454

11 11

MO MORATORIUM ON CULLING IN 1994 RATORIUM ON CULLING IN 1994

12 12

Period of elephant culling (1967 - 1994)

POLICY BETWEEN 1967 & 1994

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

1 000 2 000 3 000 5 10 15

TREES / HA ELEPHANT NUMBERS YEAR

1944 1965 1974 1981 (13/Ha) (9/Ha) (3/Ha) (1.5/Ha)

Early on, evidence of large tree reduction

SATARA AREA: 1944 - 1981

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1977 1990 2002 Year Number of individuals

The 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 D ensity Index (D I) at increasing distance from artificial w aterholes (blue) and m ain rivers (red)

• n basalt (solid) and granite (dashed) parent geology (standard error bars included)

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 2 4 6 8 10 D istance to closest artificial w aterhole (blue) and m ain river (red) (km ) DI Basalt_average(1987-1993): Artificial w aterhole G ranite_average(1987-1993): Artificial w aterhole Basalt_average(1987-1993): R iver G ranite_average(1987-1993): R iver

Elephant density index (DI) at increasing distances from artificial waterholes (blue) and main rivers (red) – Analysis

from 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

• ther site

Amboseli (1994)

Extinct! Common Gerenuk Extinct! Common Bushbuck Extinct! Common Lesser kudu 300 2 500 Baboon Vagrant 200 Giraffe Now Before Species

AMBOSELI’S POPULATION TRENDS

From Western et al

Reaching a Holistic decision

Based not only on environmental, but the

full range of considerations discussed above

Attainable Park objectives need to be

agreed upon with stakeholders

Stakeholders will have different value

systems, hence there may still be multiple perspectives on potential elephant impact

The potential risks must be managed in a

pro-active manner, using but not abusing the precautionary principle

Possible Interventions (these can often be used in combination)

Increased area Translocation Culling Contraception Hunting Fencing Migration corridors Do nothing (laissez-faire).

Intervention Options- Increased Area

Limitations well-discussed yesterday In Mozambique section of GLTP- the

concerns regarding impact on communities is limiting ability to allow elephant movement. Large water-free areas in winter

Mapungubwe: elephant influx expected

when fence comes down

System 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 costly Not 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 this SANParks 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 acceptability Effective at reducing and maintaining elephant

population without permanent effect on elephant growth rate, though some concerns were noted

Proven history of sustainable use Benefits for surrounding communities Possible tourism boycott, deemed unlikely

Intervention Options - Hunting

As evident from yesterday:

No formal requests to hunt in National Parks Communities 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 years

Could have serious risks for biodiversity and

livelihoods of neighbours

South 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 option

This 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 Park

For 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 zonation

Low-impact zones will most likely require culling due

to infeasibility of other options

However, the “Elephant haven” over half of Kruger

Park will test non-intervention in our region

Aimed at producing a range of impacts over space

and time

Believed to be the best strategy to mitigate risks to

biodiversity and to neighbours

Importantly, allows us to learn through adaptive

management

Limpopo R. Luvuvhu R. Mutale R. PAFURI PUNDA MARIA MALELANE CROCODILE BRIDGE Crocodile R. Sabie R. Sand R. PRETORIUSKOP SKUKUZA LOWER SABIE TSHOKWANE ORPEN NWANETSI Nwaswitsonso Timbavati Sweni SATARA Mbyamiti OLIFANTS LETABA PHALABORWA Olifants R. MAHLANGENI Letaba R. Klein Letaba SHANGONI SHINGWEDZI Shingwedzi Bububu Phugwane Mphongolo Tsende

HIGH ELEPHANT IMPACT ZONE LOW ELEPHANT IMPACT AREA HIGH ELEPHANT IMPACT ZONE LOW ELEPHANT IMPACT 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 PARK FOR 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 parks

Too small to consider differential zones in any other

way than fenced-off areas

Options for manipulation of elephant populations are

still being considered

Land acquisition in Addo will buy time Very 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 risks

We need a diversity of management

approaches

We must be prepared to learn by doing

THANK YOU