Tài liệu Elephant management in South Africa The need to think BIG ppt

LINK DOWNLOAD MIỄN PHÍ TÀI LIỆU "Tài liệu Elephant management in South Africa The need to think BIG ppt": http://123doc.vn/document/1050021-tai-lieu-elephant-management-in-south-africa-the-need-to-think-big-ppt.htm

Because of the ongoing expansion of the human population in Africa (Figure 2), it is important to identify
long-term solutions for the coexistence of both people and elephants, as well as other wild species that
are sustainable in terms of social justice, biodiversity conservation and moral judgement. As such, they
cannot rely on the progressive extermination of wild animals and the accompanying loss of natural
habitats, which will ultimately undermine the future of our own species and that of others.
Lessons from history
Unsustainable hunting in the 1870s led to the collapse
of local wildlife populations in the area of the present
Kruger National Park. White rhinos were extirpated
and elephants too were believed to have disappeared.
In an attempt to protect the remaining wildlife, the
Sabi Sand Game Reserve, which later became the
Kruger National Park, was founded in 1898. By
1925 the newly protected elephant population had
recovered to about 100 individuals. By 1960 the
Kruger population had reportedly increased to 1,186
elephants and reached 6,500 in 1967. At this point
the South African National Parks authorities decided
that, in the name of what was referred to as "science-
based elephant management" - defended vigorously
by SANParks, but even at the time much criticized -
elephant numbers should be controlled in order to
prevent structural damage to the existing vegetation.
It was feared, without apparent evidential foundation
that such herbivory would ultimately lead to
decreased biodiversity. Several hundred elephants
were annually killed to keep the population stable at
between 6,000 and 8,500 and over the past 29 years,
14,562 elephants were killed in the Kruger Park. Over
the same period 1,313 juveniles orphaned by these
culls were relocated from the Kruger, and more
recently 152 elephants were moved in family groups.
Professor John Skinner, who has been part of South Africa's conservation history for decades, was
recently quoted in a South African Sunday newspaper: "One must remember that a culture of culling
large game has been inherent in this park since its inception. Colonel Stevenson-Hamilton started it by
culling all the species of large carnivores. Later buffalo, wildebeest and zebras were culled because
numbers were increasing. When the latter two species started declining, the park said this was due to
predation and culled lions and hyenas, whereas this was apparently due to changes in the rainfall cycle.
During those times when elephants were also culled, the official policy was to preclude scientists from
outside the park from conducting any research on what the park described as "problem species". Yet
the park biologists were at fault by not undertaking fundamental research into the reasons for population
increase and decline. There was this feeling that outsiders could teach them nothing. Even recently,
discussing elephant culling on SAfm, I heard David Mabunda say the Kruger Park biologists were practitioners
and therefore knew better how to solve the elephant problem than outside scientists." (Skinner 2005)
Censorship and non-inclusive scientific
debate does not support the advancement of
science and improvements to management
practices in dependent sectors. Mistakes
have been made in the past. Restricting
rational debate on elephant management in
South Africa will not lead to decisions
based on the best-available knowledge, is
undemocratic, and will bring about
foreseeable repeat mistakes. We therefore
hope that all parties involved in this debate
will receive the arguments presented in this
report with an open mind.
4
Is Kruger's biodiversity at risk?
Ecological processes involving elephants are large-scale and long-term. Despite decades of draconian
population management, there is little reliable evidence of the outcomes of elephant-habitat interactions,
with respect to other species and to elephants themselves. However, amidst this uncertainty, there is no
evidence to support a reasonable expectation of imminent, irreversible damage to biodiversity, despite
SANParks' claims to the contrary.
Examples often given within South Africa of elephants' catastrophic damage to ecosystems are, in fact,
myths. Tsavo National Park in Kenya was not destroyed (despite misleading reports to the contrary
(e.g. Parker 1983) and remains dynamic, with diverse and productive plant (Leuthold 1996) and wildlife
(Inamdar 1996) communities. Paleoecological studies (Gillson 2004) revealed that the recently observed
changes in habitat structure in Tsavo East have in fact occurred several times over past millennia.
Chobe National Park in Botswana, despite its steadily increasing elephant population, remains healthy
and, rather than collapsing into devastation, has returned to the condition preceding the intense 1800s
ivory trade (Skarpe et al 2004). Amboseli National Park in Kenya is by its very nature a dynamic
ecosystem, with large-scale woodland change most likely due to saline water table effects (Western &
van Praet 1973) and swamp-edge woodlands that spread rapidly when herbivore pressure is reduced
(Lindsay in prep, Western & Maitumo 2004).
Extrapolation of exponential increase of elephant populations has been cited as a likely scenario, with
the elephant population reaching 80,000 in Kruger NP and 400,000 across southern Africa by 2020
(Mabunda 2005, SANParks 2004). However, indefinitely unlimited growth at maximum rate has not been
seen in any animal species on earth (Krebs 2000). In contrast, there is considerable evidence of
population regulation mechanisms in elephants. They are realized as localized reduction in fertility and/or
survival of elephants as food supply becomes limited. Data from long-term studies, such as Amboseli
NP, Kenya (Moss 2001) shows that conception rates are reduced and juvenile mortality increased during
years of low rainfall, and thus reduced food supply. This effect occurs both during drier than average,
and particularly drought, periods and as local elephant density increases. The evidence from Tsavo NP
shows that adult mortality, especially that of adult females with calves which remain near water, occurs
during droughts (Corfield 1973). Recent evidence from Zimbabwe records that elephant mortality similarly
increases when food is limited (Dudley et al 2001). Owen-Smith (2005b) noted that it is likely that similar
processes would operate in Kruger if waterhole distribution were to be reduced.
Dispersal from areas of locally high density is also recognized as a potentially important population
regulating mechanism in large mammals, including elephants (Owen-Smith 1983). This could occur
within large protected areas which included patches of good habitat separated by less favourable
regions, or between protected areas that are linked in a meta-population (van Aarde et al 2005). Both
of these scenarios are workable in the Kruger context.
Effects on plant communities by herbivores are rarely uniform (Redfern et al 2003), and will have greater
or lesser effects on plant and animal species in different parts of the park, which contains five main
5
Culling of all manner of species in the Kruger used to be widespread.
What follows is the minimum number of predators killed between 1903
and 1927:
1272 lions 402 pythons
660 leopards 1900 genets
269 cheetah 821 polecats
521 hyenas 50 otters
1142 African hunting dogs 87 badgers
250 caracals 2006 baboons
678 servals 1354 poisonous snakes
417 Cape wild cats 358 eagles
3133 jackals 310 hawks
1644 civets 110 giant eagleowls
635 crocodiles
vegetation zones and different soil/substrate conditions. Change is most likely to be localized in the
vicinity of water where elephants and other water-dependent species spend most of their time (Gaylard
et al 2003, Gaylard 2005, Hofmeyr 2005, O'Connor et al 2005, Redfern et al 2003). Vegetation in riverine
areas has always been subjected to greater herbivory and is likely to be adapted to such impact,
through unpalatability or considerable regrowth and/or coppicing capacity (O'Connor et al 2005) while
communities at the top of drainages are normally subject to less attention - unless artificial water is
provided in such areas. In the latter situation, certain tree species are likely to be reduced, as are animal
species not normally dependent on water (O'Connor et al 2005).
Culling and water point provision in the past in Kruger has interfered with all these mechanisms of natural
population regulation and habitat interaction by elephants. The fact that SANParks has maintained a
fixed, and low, density of elephants for nearly three decades and the provision of 400-odd water points
as well as a rotational burning policy, will have shaped the distribution of vegetation and dependent
animal species considerably. The current and historical state of KNP should therefore not be mistaken
as natural status quo. Consequently, the fact that the Kruger Park is said to be home to more than
12,000 elephants is not, as has been stated repeatedly "a conservation success" (e.g. Mabunda 2005),
but the result of artificially created conditions, which have allowed elephant numbers to increase at the
maximum rate and prevented the operation of self-regulating mechanisms.
The perception that the Kruger Park was changing intensified during a recent persistent drought, which
lasted well into 1995. Yet, it is known that none of the 1,922 plant species in the Kruger Park are
endangered, nor are any of the plant communities under threat. According to evidence discussed at the
recent SANParks technical meeting, there is little reason to fear that biodiversity is under imminent risk
in Kruger NP (Owen-Smith 2005b) and every reason to believe that imaginative elephant management
approaches can result in population mechanisms that will promote heterogeneity within the Park and
actually increase biodiversity in the longer term. The viewpoint that heterogeneity and temporal change
can be creative and promote, rather than threaten, biodiversity in systems containing elephants, was
articulated over a decade ago by Lindsay (1993), and there is little new evidence to challenge it.
SANParks' philosophy and paradigm of conservation
SANParks is keen to point out that it has moved away from its previous "command and control",
agro-economic, production system approach towards a modern non-equilibrium, ecosystem dynamics
approach uncompromisingly subscribed to for over three decades, stressing heterogeneity and change
through time (SANParks 2005, p.17). This position is a reiteration of statements made by Kruger's
managers and scientists in published literature (Mabunda et al 2003, Rogers 2003). In a broader
context, this "paradigm shift" has been heralded both in theoretical ecology and in its application to
conservation, in international "best practice" (Fiedler et al 1997) and in specific protected areas (e.g.
Yellowstone NP, Keiter & Boyce 1991).
Previously, SANParks' approach was characterized by attempts to homogenize ecosystems: placing
waterpoints everywhere, burning regimes to control bush (keep open or prevent "encroachment",
encourage mature trees), culling populations of many species including wild dogs, lions, hyenas,
elephants and buffaloes, among others (see 'Lessons from history' section), in an attempt to impose
order. However, these efforts in fact reduced biodiversity by removing refuges for water-independent,
ecotone-loving species, such as roan antelope, and locked different wildlife populations into "eruptive"
phases of rapid population increase rates.
This old approach, derived from an agro-economic commercial production system model, idealized a
single, "correct", Balance of Nature state, with a set "carrying capacity" for each species. This term was,
however, incorrectly applied as a limit set at maximum productivity rather the ecological limit on
population size set by habitat conditions (Caughley 1979). SANParks believed, and passionately argued
that this ideal balance of nature had been "lost" through human impacts and must be re-imposed and
maintained by man (Mabunda et al 2003).
More recently, SANParks has articulated the new approach, a recognition that ecosystems are highly
variable, particularly in semi-arid savannas subject to random weather patterns (Behnke et al 1993) and
may occupy multiple stable states (Dublin et al 1990). Under such a view, management should intervene
only to promote geographical heterogeneity and encourage change through time, and evaluate human
impacts as additional ecological processes (Pickett et al 1997). Thus, biodiversity is maximized by
embracing and allowing change, not controlling the system in every aspect - and terms such as "carrying
capacity" are no longer considered useful (McLeod 1997).
6
Despite its stated intention to relax the population control of most animal species in Kruger NP,
SANParks' embrace of the new paradigm has drawn the line at elephants. There remains the belief that
elephants are somehow different from other herbivores and that their populations, alone among all
wildlife, remain in need of control (Whyte et al 2003). In addition, there is a persistent tendency of some
SANParks practitioners to use terms like "the number of animals the system can carry", "overpopulation",
"optimum density" etc. (Mabunda 2005) - all attributes of the old and outmoded approach. The
proclaimed paradigm shift towards a contemporary understanding of ecosystem dynamics therefore
lacks consistency and credibility.
Ecology is a historical science
As the title of this section states, ecology is a historical science - an especially important point in semi-
arid savannah ecosystems. However, this is not reflected in SANParks' stance on elephant management.
The conditions present now, the age and
size structure as well as the species
composition of plant and animal communities,
are the result of processes acting over long
periods (Gillson 2004). Decimation of
elephant populations by the ivory trade,
especially the huge volumes trafficked in
the 1800s, removed elephants over wide
areas and had cascading impacts on
vegetation and other species allowing tree
species, such as marula and various acacias,
to colonize and become established in a
way that may have been unusual in
ecological time (Skarpe et al 2004).
Much of the discussion on whether or not elephant populations have to be controlled in order to prevent
irreversible vegetation damage has focussed on the marula tree (Sclerocarya birrea) and the baobab
(Adansonia digitata). Marula trees are known to rapidly colonise new areas. Thus, it is likely that in the
late 1800s, as elephant numbers dwindled away, the distribution range of marula trees would have
expanded. Responding to recovering elephant numbers, the distribution range of marula trees would
be expected to contract again. Because of the baobab's more than 1000-year life span, short term
developments over barely one human generation cannot possibly provide sufficient information for the
detection of population trends. This is even more likely in view of the fact that trees follow spatially and
temporally irregular mosaic recruitment patterns.
There is a hypothesis, widely stated in SANParks and related literature, that elephants were never
abundant, held at low density by human hunters (e.g. Whyte et al 2003), but the evidence is characterized
by a lack of data, based on the absence of artifacts, rather than any positive demonstration. An
alternative interpretation is that the large ivory volumes extracted from the region in the 1800s suggests
there were large elephant populations in southern Africa at that time (Owen-Smith 2005a). In the modern
era, parks were created in areas of woodlands that existed only because elephants had been effectively
eradicated, and management was directed at maintaining this historical artefact. In fact, SANParks'
interpretation, does not even accurately reflect Cooney's (2004) position. A comprehensive analysis of
the mistakes made in SANParks' interpretation of the precautionary principle can be found in Appendix III.
The precautionary principle
The precautionary principle has been invoked and applied by SANParks with a very specific interpretation
biased towards sustainable use (Cooney 2004). Perhaps it is not surprising that this particular interpretation
was the one of choice, as the chief proponent of the "Precautionary Principle Project" which led to it is
ResourceAfrica, an organization devoted to promoting the principle of consumptive use (ResourceAfrica
2005). In fact, SANParks' interpretation, does not even accurately reflect Cooney's (2004) position. A
comprehensive analysis of the mistakes made in SANParks' interpretation of the precautionary principle
can be found in Appendix III.
In summary, SANParks' Report on the Elephant Management Strategy (EMS) fails to accurately reflect
the precautionary principle as reflected in international environmental agreements and declarations as
7
well as Cooney's Issues Paper for several reasons. First, despite many examples from international
environmental agreements and from Cooney's Issues Paper, the EMS treats the precautionary principle
as merely a procedural, rather than substantive, obligation.
1
However, the precautionary principle calls
for measures to minimize and avoid environmental harm. It also calls for cost-effective measures or
measures that are proportionate to the potential harm. Although the outcome standard of cost-effective
environmental protection is subjective and relatively discretionary, it does, nonetheless, require some
analysis and suggests at least a baseline for a substantive result.
Second, the EMS suggests that neither local communities nor government conservation officials should
bear the burden of proof. With respect to elephant management, however, SANParks is the project
proponent and bears the burden to show that elephants are causing a loss of biodiversity and that the
proposed policy to cull elephants minimizes harm to biodiversity and that it minimizes harm to elephant
populations or other species that depend on elephants.
The EMS, from the outset, makes general statements regarding the role of elephants in harming
biodiversity and, in particular, whether elephant culling will effectuate South Africa's biodiversity
conservation policy. The EMS states that "it has to be accepted in principle that it is legitimate to apply
population management as a precaution." That is not necessarily true. To the extent that SANParks
promotes culling as a means to stem the loss of biodiversity, it must identify elephants as posing a risk
to biodiversity. Elephant culling results in irreversible, direct loss of biodiversity, and, as such, warrants
application of the precautionary principle. The EMS makes no attempt to show how that policy minimizes
harm to elephants or other species. In NRM, where multiple environmental risks exist, precautionary
principle implementation should aid decision-makers to make choices that balance each risk-versus-
caution scenario, resulting in an overall cost-effective, environmentally protective decision. The EMS
never assessed the various risks and thus never evaluated proportionate or cost-effective measures.
Community benefits
The poverty of the human population adjacent to
Kruger is not due to the protected area. It is the
result of distance from and potential neglect by
central government, from past regimes to the
present. Rural development requires an integrated
approach from several sectors of government at
national and local levels and from the communities
themselves. Sustainable benefit for rural communities
can indeed be derived from PAs, but there is no
prerequisite that this must involve consumptive
use of the animals in the protected area. Indeed,
non-consumptive use is likely to be the most
economically sustainable approach, because it
builds local capacity and infrastructure, increases
skills and creates financial self-sufficiency and
independence, while minimizing the potential harm
done by killing wildlife within the ecosystem.
Killing of elephants cannot be maintained at a rate that will bring sustained development to rural
communities. To base poverty reduction on elephant products that are handed down from SANParks
will create expectations and dependencies, which are likely, sooner or later, to run counter to SANParks'
conservation objectives, which still form the primary goals for protected areas. In so doing, this will tie
the hands of conservation managers, while at the same time will fail to deliver sustainable social
development to the communities. Elephants are the least productive of terrestrial animals; their great
size means that their typical rate of increase (5%) is lower than typical discount rates. They are not a
suitable resource upon which to base sustainable development activity. As Purvis (2001) notes: "Orders
composed of large species with slow life histories (e.g. elephants and perissodactyls) have a high
prevalence of threat due to overexploitation", which means that their low productivity makes them
vulnerable to unsustainable offtake and potential extinction.
8
1
If it is true that Cooney argues for a purely procedural interpretation of the precautionary principle, then her interpretation is not
grounded in international environmental law, as all versions of the precautionary principle relating to biodiversity that require at
least some level of environmental protection
Value can be added more effectively to wildlife
existence values through tourism, and related
employment and service industries supporting
the PA and wildlife conservation, rather than
treating the protected area as a farm for
delivering animal products. As noted by
Hutton & Dickson (2001), revenue generation
from tourism is significantly greater than from
"cropping" of wildlife, and photo-tourism offers
greater opportunities for investment and
added value than consumptive utilization,
which is limited by the "offtake-determined
threshold of revenues" (Murphree 2000); in
other words, consumptive use can only
provide returns up to the biological limit of
productivity, while non-consumptive tourism
can continue to diversify its attractions and
services, and thereby its returns to investors
(and communities).
Community wildlife areas outside the PAs should be encouraged to reduce the hard edge approach of
SANParks. This is standard practice in all neighbouring countries, where there are Community
Conservancies (Namibia), Wildlife Management Areas (Botswana) and CAMPFIRE areas (Zimbabwe).
This multiple use would increase the prospects for corridors for wildlife dispersal and population
regulation, and buffer zones for PAs.
Economic analyses of consumptive use fail to recognize all the costs of killing elephants and storing
products, so that benefits are NET of costs, as in any other commodity. The reported benefits from
consumptive use of raw animal products are, thus, greatly exaggerated. An example of a more thorough
analysis is given in Table 1, using figures provided in the SANParks report on its experts' meeting (Grant
2005). The annual return of between R 0.5m and R 6m noted for culling with access to ivory markets is
likely to be much too high, as a number of additional costs have not been estimated yet. Without an
annual ivory trade, the culling appears as a net loss of R 1.5m or a modest net gain of R 4m.
According to SANParks' most recent
Annual Report, their annual turnover for
2004/05 was R 419m, coming from tourism
and sales, with a transfer from DEAT of
R73.6m for operating costs. The total
salary cost for the Executive Management
team was R 9m. Thus, even with ivory
sales (which are currently suspended),
the net revenue from culling would be
insignificant compared to the annual
budget of Kruger NP, and would cover
only a fraction of the salaries of senior
staff alone. Nor could culling be seen to
provide a source of significant benefit for
distribution to local communities.
Distributing these relatively limited net
returns to a local population conservatively
estimated in the region of some 5 million
people (Statistics South Africa 2005a) will
provide very little on a per capita basis (R
0.11 to 1.25 per person with ivory sales,
and R -0.32 to 0.83 per person with hides
and meat sales alone).
It is possible to question the detail of the financial analysis provided here, but the main points remain:
z taking costs as well as gross revenue into account, the net returns from culling are very limited and
insignificant when compared to PA turnover and running costs
z the per capita benefit to local communities is minimal
9
It is noteworthy that SANParks itself has not produced well-supported figures to demonstrate a significant,
sustainable benefit from extracting elephant products from Kruger National Park. One aspect of the lack
of proper documentation is that the estimates of hide and meat resulting from culling vary greatly
between two different sources (Cumming et al 2005; Whyte et al 2005) in the same SANParks document
(Grant 2005).
SANParks rightly note that local communities should benefit from the park, but focus incorrectly on the
products of culling. In Uganda for example, 20% of all gate fees flow directly to local communities, see
below. Chapter three on tourism will illustrate that South Africa as a whole has derived financial benefits
several orders of magnitude above the best possible gains to be derived from elephant culling.
Conflict issues
Increased fence breakage has been reported as due to the increasing elephant population in Kruger NP,
allowing elephants to damage farms and livestock disease to spread (Bengis 2005). However, the truth
10

For a population size of 13,000 elephants:
4,126,740-1,593,260Total without ivory
3
6,289,925569,925Total
highlow
Total (Rand)
Net Revenue
5,771,457Subtotal costs
473,197Ivory storage
3
5,298,260Culling
2
Total (Rand)
Costs
12,061,3826,341,382Total
1,625,000975,0005500300““Meat
7,800,0002,730,0006020070““Hide
2,636,3822,636,382676666505Ivory
highlowhighlow
Total (Rand)
Unit value
(Rand)
1
Unit weight (kg)
No.
culled
% of
pop.
Elephant part
Gross Revenue
For a population size of 13,000 elephants:
4,126,740-1,593,260Total without ivory
3
6,289,925569,925Total
highlow
Total (Rand)
Net Revenue
5,771,457Subtotal costs
473,197Ivory storage
3
5,298,260Culling
2
Total (Rand)
Costs
12,061,3826,341,382Total
1,625,000975,0005500300““Meat
7,800,0002,730,0006020070““Hide
2,636,3822,636,382676666505Ivory
highlowhighlow
Total (Rand)
Unit value
(Rand)
1
Unit weight (kg)
No.
culled
% of
pop.
Elephant part
Gross Revenue
1
Unit value of ivory of this mean tusk size is taken as US$100/kg, converted to SA Rand at an exchange rate of
0.14793 (Financial Times, 18 November 2005).
2
Whyte et al 2005, p315. Note that these are minimum figures, based on 1994 values. The estimates were for
culling 800 animals, but most of these costs will be relatively fixed and are likely to be only slightly reduced for a
smaller cull. They greatly underestimate recurrent costs, such as current salaries and operating costs not corrected
for inflation from 1994. They do not including refurbishment of facilities decommissioned since 1994, nor do they
include annualized capital costs of infrastructure, or meat processing/canning costs.
3
Figure of US$70,000, converted to SA Rand, was taken from Namibia's CITES CoP11 proposal (Government of the
Republic of Namibia 2000), the only available figure for the costs of storing and protecting ivory stocks. We did not have
the equivalent figure for South Africa. Note that the net revenue without ivory did not include ivory storage as a cost.
Table 1. Estimates of potential gross and net revenue from elephant products. Figures on low and high amounts of
products from Cumming at al (2005) and Whyte et al (2005) respectively. Figures on unit values of hides and meat,
and on costs of culling are from Whyte et al (2005). Figures on current ivory prices are adapted from Martin & Styles
(2005). Culling rate was taken to be 5% of the total population.
Gross Revenue
Costs
Net Revenue
is that this increased incidence of fence problems is not an ecological effect, but an administrative
failure. The agency responsible for fence breakage should be clearly identified and properly supported,
so that fences are maintained.
Protection of the fence from within KNP does not require wholesale reduction of the entire elephant
population in a large zone. More effective measures would include localized deterrence activity and/or
strategic location of waterpoints away from fences.
The economic argument presented by SANParks, citing the cost of livestock disease at R93million
versus the cost of effective fencing at R37million (SANParks 2005, p.5), does not make sense - it
appears that the highest cost fence would show benefits outweighing costs by a ratio of over 2.5 times.
An additional alternative to strengthening and protecting the boundary fence would be to remove the
hard boundary between protected wildlife on the one side and human communities on the other. This
approach, would create community wildlife areas outside the protected area, with the disease-free zone
one line back along a more appropriate physical and administrative alignment, and has been recently
proposed for the southeastern Lowveld area of Zimbabwe (du Toit 2005).
SANParks have misrepresented opposition to culling
"Do nothing is not an option" is a catch-phrase used over and over again by SANParks in an attempt to
dismiss opponents to culling as out-of-touch or sentimental (e.g. Mabunda 2005). However, 'doing nothing'
is not what we are proposing. At a recent press conference Minister Mr Van Schalkwyk said: "Culling is
something I would rather not have to do. If there was any way of avoiding it, we would have done that"
(Bridgland 2005). We agree with the first part of his statement and like many other international and
South African scientists, believe that culling is unnecessary. The focus of this report therefore to put
forward constructive, practical proposals other than simply killing elephants.
SANParks (2005, p.22) listed the following management options - "not all practical or desirable" - as
having been discussed at their expert meeting in March 2005:
1. Do nothing (laissez faire), with or without additional information collection.
2. Expand elephant habitat by:
a. increasing the size of national parks;
b. providing corridors for dispersal to elephant "sinks" (e.g. hunting zones);
c. removing barriers to dispersal (fences) that currently surround national parks.
3. Restrict elephant habitat within parks by closing water points permanently or cyclically thereby
increasing mortality of juvenile elephants by forcing them to travel longer distances between
sources of water and foraging areas.
4. Introduce biological control in the form of predators or diseases.
5. Protect sensitive areas by excluding elephant from them as is the case in AENP.
6. Increase mortality to reduce population growth rate and/or size. The main options are:
a. culling (full culling or selective),
b. allowing hunting and
c. failing to control poaching.
7. Reduce birth rate by contraception to effect, in the long term, a reduction in population growth rate or size.
8. Translocation of elephants from an over populated, to a less populated, area.
However, in the conclusions of their recommendations to the Minister, they have limited themselves
merely to the following options (SANParks 2005, p.33):
z The use of culling in the short to medium term shall be considered in the context of adaptive
management and shall be applied on the basis of the specific needs of each PA.
z Other management tools such as translocation, contraception and migration corridors to be applied
as medium to long term management interventions.
11
Many realistic alternatives to the short-term, single-species focus on culling elephants across a broad
landscape were presented (O'Connor 2005, Owen-Smith 2005b, van Aarde et al 2005) at the expert
meeting held in Luiperdskloof in March 2005. It is therefore surprising that, despite statements about
comprehensive consultation, the alternatives presented below have not found their way into their
recommendations to the Minister (SANParks 2005).
If SANParks is taking their commitment to the a new, contemporary conservation paradigm seriously,
one would expect to see it embrace the goal of creating a heterogeneous landscape, where elephant
population and dispersal processes can unfold with minimal interference, playing out their role in the
wildlife community. The proposal of a small number of large culling zones are said to produce such
heterogeneity, but - akin to gardening - these would once again simply represent blanket treatments
over large areas of otherwise diverse habitat, a repetition of the old homogenizing approach; this time
across subsections of the park rather than the Kruger as a hole. Instead of the proposed regime, several
alternative actions could be taken. They are outlined below.
These actions will not have immediate effects on overall elephant density - which is not required - but
will increase heterogeneity at the landscape level and large-scale diversity. As noted above, there is no
evidence of an imminent risk to biodiversity. Thus, neither is there a need for management action to
produce immediate effects.
Chapter 3. International implications: what's at stake?
International tourism contributes significantly to South Africa's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The
following section collates information about the scale of that contribution and examines global trends
in tourism behaviour and travel choices in an attempt to gauge the potential impact of a resumption of
elephant killing in the Kruger National Park on tourist revenue in South Africa as a whole.
Development through tourism
"Tourism is the world's largest industry and every year it pumps billions of dollars into some of the poorest
countries on Earth," so read a recent article in Business Week (Leonard 2005). "When tourism is thriving
we get better schools, better hospitals and better infrastructure," says Kenya tourism ministry official
Rebecca Nabutola. "When tourism does well, so do our other industries." Mrs Nabutola's remarks are
echoed by Uganda's Minister of Tourism and Antiquities, Akaki Ayumu Jovino. "Tourism means jobs,
poverty reduction and a better life for all our citizens. It is becoming our No. 1 foreign exchange earner."
Unlike in South Africa, in Uganda, 20% of all park gate fees go directly to local communities to spend as
they see fit, says Minister Jovino. "Our studies also show that one tourist means eight jobs, not just for
the tourism industry but also in agriculture and all the support businesses" (Leonard 2005). Bene
Maleka, of the Southern African Development Bank seems to agree: "If managed properly, tourism can
make a huge contribution to the regeneration of the African continent" (Leonard 2005).
12
Alternative actions to SANParks' proposed elephant management recommendation
z reduce waterpoints, particularly in areas at the top of drainages where there was NEVER water
in the first place, creating areas that would naturally be used by elephants (e.g. dry river beds
etc.) and other "refuge" areas that are used less.
z encourage linkages with other areas of elephant habitat, such as Limpopo NP in Mozambique.
Elephants will colonise, without translocation, such adjacent areas. It just takes a few years, but
SANParks seems to expect an instant response, part of the old "control" paradigm.
z encourage a meta-population, linking protected areas by corridors and develop community-
based wildlife management outside the PAs (see below)
z protect vulnerable, and valuable, areas through fencing (as in Addo), or deterrence methods
(burning herbaceous vegetation, scaring methods)
z apply pZP contraception, which is an affordable, minimal intervention method - one which is
constantly improving that can be used to reduce local density within a large population such
as Kruger, or more effectively, the whole population in small enclosed populations (Bertschinger
et al 2005)
International Tourism to South Africa
According to the World Travel and Tourism Council, WTTC, tourism in South Africa has earned the
country R31.1 billion in 2002. In doing so, it created 492,700 jobs (WTTC 2002). If indirect benefits,
such as fuel, catering companies, laundry services and accounting firms etc., are taken into account, this
figure increases to R72.5 billion - the equivalent of 7.1% of South Africa's Gross Domestic Product and
6.9% of the country's total employment (Table 2).
Table 2 Revenue earned and job creation through tourism in South Africa for 2002. Figures presented include direct
benefits, e.g. airlines, hotels, car rental companies, etc, and indirect benefits such as fuel, catering companies,
laundry services, accounting firms etc. (WTTC, 2002).
These figures are expected to rise substantially over the coming years and by 2012, direct and indirect
revenue earnings are projected to reach R194.3 billion, with a predicted 1,555,300 dependent jobs
(Table 3). Tourism was identified as one of the key growth sectors for the South African economy
(Mason 2003), and the WTTC too believes that travel and tourism offer enormous potential as a catalyst
for future economic and social development across the whole country (WTTC 2002).
A study carried out by the South African Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT)
indicates that every overseas tourist who visited South Africa in 2000 generated about R66,400 towards
the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Furthermore, on average one new employment opportunity
is created for every eight additional overseas visitor to South Africa. According to DEAT, "tourism
development in South Africa is expected to play an increasingly significant role in the national (and
regional) economy in terms of its contribution to national production, government revenue, foreign
exchange earnings, employment creation and entrepreneurship development" (Mason 2003).
Why go there?
In 2004, 6,815,202 foreign visitors travelled to South Africa (Statistics South Africa 2005b). Scenic beauty
and wildlife remain the main attractions for international travellers to South Africa, with the Kruger Park
featuring in the top ten attractions visited (WTTC 2002).
The 1996 White Paper on Development and Promotion of Tourism in South Africa committed the
government to a policy of responsible tourism development, arguing that "responsible tourism is not a
luxury for South Africa" (Mason 2003). The UK has the single biggest market share in visitors to South
13
1,555,300
R194.3 billion
(US$ 21.3 billion)
679,200
R84.8 billion
($US9.3 billion)
Jobs
Created
Revenue Earned
Jobs
Created
Revenue Earned
Direct & Indirect ImpactDirect Impact
1,555,300
R194.3 billion
(US$ 21.3 billion)
679,200
R84.8 billion
($US9.3 billion)
Jobs
Created
Revenue Earned
Jobs
Created
Revenue Earned
Direct & Indirect ImpactDirect Impact

6.9%
1,148,00
0
7.1%
R72.5 billion
(US$7.2 billion)
3.0%492,7003.0%
R31.1 billion
(US$3.1 billion)
Total
Jobs
Jobs
Created
GDP
Revenue
Earned
Total
Jobs
Jobs
Created
GDP
Revenue
Earned
Direct & Indirect ImpactDirect Impact
6.9%
1,148,00
0
7.1%
R72.5 billion
(US$7.2 billion)
3.0%492,7003.0%
R31.1 billion
(US$3.1 billion)
Total
Jobs
Jobs
Created
GDP
Revenue
Earned
Total
Jobs
Jobs
Created
GDP
Revenue
Earned
Direct & Indirect ImpactDirect Impact
Table 3 Revenue earned and job creation through tourism in South Africa for
2012. Figures presented include direct benefits, e.g. airlines, hotels, car rental
companies, etc, and indirect benefits such as fuel, catering companies, laundry
services, accounting firm etc. (WTTC, 2002).
Direct Impact
Direct & Indirect Impact
Direct Impact
Direct & Indirect Impact
1,148,000