![]()
Previous:
Next:
|
![]() Conservation Inside Protected Areas1. Protected AreasAlthough roughly 10 per cent of sub-Saharan Africa is under some kind of protected status, about half this area is designated as a "multiple-use" or "wildlife management area" where some human activities are allowed. The balance (5.2 per cent of the total ), comprises national parks or wildlife reserves for the protection of biodiversity and the maintenance of natural ecological processes. It is these protected areas in which financial resources have been concentrated in order to conserve elephants and oth er wildlife. Taking into account, however, that in poor and politically unstable countries some national parks have already lost their biological integrity from human incursions, the real amount of protected land is even less. While the effects upon eleph ants of seasonal incursions into protected areas by pastoralists may be more or less benign, incursions that involve intensive poaching, permanent settlement, and cultivation, are likely to be heavy and lasting, whether in savanna or forested areas.One of the major problems with national parks in savanna and forest habitats is that they are increasingly becoming islands, either physically, through fencing, or figuratively, as a result of human settlement on their borders. Consequently elephant popul ations are increasingly confined within these areas as their traditional seasonal migratory routes are cut off. Creating corridors to link the isolated populations has proved very difficult to achieve, with the result that there are now special problems a ssociated with the conservation and management of the national parks as a whole, as elephant density can rapidly increase. When habitat conditions are good, elephant populations can grow at about 5 per cent per year, or even more where immigration of elep hants occurs. Although such natural growth of elephant populations can be regarded as a conservation success -- as well as being financially beneficial to the national park as elephants attract tourist revenues -- it can also be a source of new ecological and social pr oblems. High elephant densities can reduce the biological integrity of the national park as well as be a source of conflict with the communities outside the protected areas as the likelihood of breakouts increase.
The escalating allocation of large, long-term logging concessions, however, means that there is now a cause for great concern. Although it can be argued that logging can actually contribute to forest elephant habitat, because of the preference of elephant s for secondary growth -- the burgeoning forestry industry is opening up closed-canopy forests-- it is questionable whether or not elephants will have access to these areas. One difference, however, between forest and savanna elephant populations is that the former are less protected by national parks, there being little of the central African rainforests with such status. Thus, the new conservation initiatives by central Afr ican states to designate large tracts of forests as national parks is very important for the elephant population. These include a tri-national park located between the Central African Republic (CAR), the Congo, and Cameroon (the park is made up of Dzanga- Sangha in the CAR, Noubalé-Ndoki in the Congo, and Boumba Bek and Lac Lobéké in Cameroon); and the Gamba Protected Area Complex and Minkébé Forest in Gabon. These initiatives are also unique in that their designs have taken into a ccount both the needs of elephants and human communities that share the same land by combining conventional protected areas systems with community responsibility for natural resource management. Yet, despite these and other initiatives in savanna habitats, such as the creation of Marakele National Park and the extension of Addo National Park in South Africa, it is unlikely that any significant expansion of the protected area system will take plac e in most African elephant range states. The remote possibilities that do exist are to be found in a number of poor or politically unstable countries such as Angola, Liberia, Sudan, and Zaire, where there are areas with protected status that presently exi st only on paper, but could be utilized once peace and political stability return. The fact remains that local political pressure in many of the range states to de-gazette segments of the existing protected-area system is building up, while in others, the protected areas have already been reduced in size by de facto settlement or simply overwhelmed by refugees from the recent and current spate of warfare.
2. Biodiversity
2.1 "Flagship" and "keystone" species
The role African elephants play as a flagship species extends far beyond their popular appeal. By attracting attention to their uncertain future, they also focus attention on the plight of the ecosystems of which they form an integral part. The conservati on of a flagship species thus has a multiplier effect in that it leads to the conservation of other species sharing the same habitat as well, helping to achieve the primary goal of biological conservation: the maintenance of biodiversity (the total number of genes, species, and ecosystems in a region). Yet, despite the wide appeal of the flagship-species approach to conservation, the concept has become oversimplified and has implications for biodiversity that are not necessarily clear. Conserving a flagship species may be positive, neutral, or negative with respect to biodiversity. In the positive case, a flagship species conserves biodiversity, in the neutral case it has little positive or negative effect, and in the negative case the proliferation of the species leads to its dominance in a given commu nity and ultimately to the competitive exclusion of other taxa of biological importance. Elephants have the potential to bring about any, and all, such effects on other species. Hence, in the case of the African elephant, more needs to be known about its complex relationships to biodiversity before the flagship concept is applied to its conservation and management. The elephants is also what ecologists call a "keystone" species, indicating that it plays a key role in the structuring of natural communities and thus the maintenance of biodiversity. It is also a versatile species in that it can easily switch food types and thus habitats.
2.2 The effects of elephants on biodiversity
A study of the Amboseli National Park, Kenya, that began in the early 1970s, supports and illustrates this generalization. It was found that heavy poaching pressure on its external boundaries resulted in a high concentration of elephants seeking safety in the central part of the park. In areas just outside the park, elephant densities were very low, while just inside the park boundaries there were medium densities. Two decades later, the number and relative abundance of plant species in these three areas was measured. Taking into account other factors such as the availability of water and salinity, it was found that the number and abundance of plant species was highest near the park boundary and lowest in both the central part of the park and outside it. Another example of the negative effect of high elephant densities on biodiversity was observed in the Tsavo National Park in the early 1970s. As a result of the very high elephant densities and the associated impact on woodlands, there was a decline in th e habitat available to other browsers such as giraffe, kudu, black rhino, and a rich assemblage of woodland birds and insect fauna. As the elephant population crashed from about 40,000 to 6,000 because of drought-induced starvation and severe poaching, th ese other species began to recover. Yet, as the Amboseli study demonstrated, elephants can also enhance biodiversity. The mechanism whereby this is achieved is also gradually being understood. For example, when elephants flatten trees in forests, the resulting gap becomes an enriched island within the closed-canopy forest. Light-dependent grasses, herbs, and tree-seedlings germinate in the open sunlight and provide readily available food to a diverse assemblage of herbivores, such as duikers, gorillas, small mammals, birds, and insects. Ele phants are also important agents for seed dispersal and germination, since certain forest trees produce fruits that are too large to be eaten whole by animals other than elephants. It has also been found that the seeds from these fruits germinate better a fter passage through an elephant's gut. Some researchers have suggested that by and large elephants may be responsible for the tendency of African rainforests to be rich and patchy compared to the uniform, closed-canopy structure of South American forests . Similarly, elephants play an important role in the establishment of savanna woodlands. Observations of seedling germination and growth in elephant dung have shown that elephants play a role in distributing, fertilizing, and facilitating the germination of savanna trees, such as acacias, which are an integral element of African savannas. Having co-evolved with the diverse assemblages of both vertebrates and invertebrates, acacia seeds are a vital food source to both large and small mammals, and the trees a nd seedlings provide homes to birds, reptiles, and insects. It has also been found (as in the Amboseli study) that where elephant density is low, biodiversity is held in check as bush increases to the detriment of grazing species, perennial grasses, and the rich communities that thrive in the transition zone betwe en grasslands and forests or thickets. The most severe of such cases are in areas where elephants have been reduced by poaching or displaced by human settlement. Other effects of elephants in African ecosystems have been further illuminated in studies on mineral cycling and the formation of seasonal waterholes. In the Central African Republic, for example, researchers found that elephants are attracted by minerals such as sodium and potassium found in abandoned termite mounds. The elephants break up the soil in these mounds with their tusks and feet and consequently provide mineral licks for a variety of animals. Within just a few months, depressions are hollowed out of the heavy clay soil as the number of animals that visit the licks increases. These depressions then hold water in the next rainy season, which in turn opens up new grazing grounds for a variety of other species. The mechanisms whereby high elephant densities reduce biodiversity have also been documented. High elephant densities can reduce an ecosystem to, and hold it in, a grassland phase. For example, when elephants damage trees by stripping off the bark they ma y not kill the tree outright, but they make it increasingly vulnerable to invasion by wood-boring insects, fungi and other pathogens, or the frequent hot fires that characterize savanna ecosystems. The damage to habitats can be rapid. In West Africa's "W" National Park, for instance, it has taken only just over a decade for elephants to reduce a once rich and complex riverine forest along the Tapoa River to a simple grassland community that consists of little more than dead wood and compacted soils. Another case is in the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem spanning the border between Tanzania and Kenya. Following years of poaching in the Serengeti National Park, elephants sought refuge in KenyaÀÀs Maasai Ma ra National Reserve. This too has greatly reduced the woodlands. While grazers and grasses may have increased in number and abundance, there have been corresponding losses in browsers and woody species. Despite these examples and more recent studies in Kenya and Zimbabwe on the effects of elephant densities on habitats, as well as the effects of particular conservation and management practices, much research still remains to be done, particularly for for est habitats, before we can fully understand the elephant-biodiversity relationship.
3. Selecting Preferred Management DensitiesThe final decisions for managing elephant populations must be made by the African wildlife authorities responsible for the protected areas. It will be these authorities who set "preferred management densities", or the optimal number of elephants for the g iven area, on the basis of their site-specific goals. The fact that elephants are generally regarded as public assets under the control and management of national authorities usually determines the manner in which their populations will be managed. Such d etermination will usually take into account a mix of considerations: the welfare of elephant populations and related ecological factors on the one hand, and economic, legal, political, and social factors on the other. For instance, most national parks in Africa are expected to earn tourist revenues. As the majority of tourists like to see large herds of plains animals in the open grasslands, such as zebra, wildebeest, and buffalo, elephants are important because they h elp to establish and maintain the appropriate habitats. Thus, in some cases, park managers may prefer to maintain higher elephant densities that favour plains game at a higher level than may be desirable from an overall perspective of species richness and abundance.
In other situations, managers may adopt a non-interventionist approach to elephant management, i.e. allowing elephant populations to increase unchecked. Although this strategy appears attractive on the grounds that it allows ecosystems to regulate themsel ves, it is not without risk to both the elephant populations and the biological integrity of the national parks. The danger is that if the protected area is small there may be little opportunity for elephants to regulate their numbers in the short term through dispersal. Consequently, elephant density will increase with the danger of irreparable damage to the habita t. In turn, elephant food supply will diminish and the probability of a catastrophic die-off will increase. Such die-offs have occurred, for example, in Zimbabwe's Gonarezhou National Park and Kenya's Tsavo National Park. Moreover, non-intervention also r uns the risk of subjecting elephant populations to unnecessary exposure to drought-induced die-offs. The setting of preferred management densities implies that wildlife authorities must actively regulate elephant population numbers and densities. There are currently four existing or potential means to do this, namely, selective offtake of animals (cullin g); moving them to other areas (translocation); regulating the reproductive performance of female elephants (contraception); or expanding the range available to the elephant population. Each of these options is discussed below.
3.1 Culling
The chief advantage of culling is cost. At about US$100 per elephant, it is still the cheapest means of population control (e.g. translocation costs range from US$200 to US$1,000 per elephant). The method also allows the park to capitalize on the elephant products from the cull: the ivory and hides for the world market and meat for game guards and local communities. However, since the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) ban on international trade in elephant products came into effect in 1990, Zimbabwe and South Africa have built up significant stocks of ivory and hi des from their culling operations.* The governments of both countries are presently unwilling to destroy their ivory or hide stocks because of their potential market value in the event international trade in elephant product s is resumed. Moreover, in some countries the domestic ivory trade is still legal, although local markets for both ivory and hides remain very limited. Elephant hides are a source of high-grade durable leather that, prior to the ban, found a ready market mainly in Europe, the United States, and Asia. In the United States, most hides went to Texas where they were made into cowboy boots. About 29 tonnes of hide were produced annually from the Kruger National Park cull. Between 1985 and 1989, the revenue of elephant hides (mostly from Kruger), exported from South Africa, averaged about US$1.7 million per year. In total, elephant ivory, hides, and meat broug ht in about 75 per cent of all revenue earned from the sale of by-products of the park's animal population control programme. With the CITES ban in place, the Kruger National Park is now running an annual deficit. Park authorities have said that the ability to trade in elephant hides alone would erase this deficit. They have currently stockpiled 100 tonnes of hides.
*The Trade Records Analysis of Flora and Fauna in Commerce (TRAFFIC) has identified the existence of ivory stocks in 23African countries, as well as many countries outside of Africa.
3.2 Translocation
Translocation has generally involved relocating cull orphans (e.g. the young elephants rescued from a cull in Rwanda and moved to Akagera National Park in 1975), although more recently entire family groups, including adult bulls, have been moved. Overall, the method has proved fairly successful in South Africa and Zimbabwe. The Kruger National Park authorities are in fact starting to switch from culling to translocation. It is generally believed that the removal of family units is less traumatic for elephant social structure and behaviour than culling. Although there was initial concern that the method was not without its problems because it ignores the role family units play within the wider clan and bond groups, this has now proved to be unfounded. Subsequent research has shown that elephant social structure is in fact quite fluid, with family units chopping and changing more often than previously realised. In addition to being a short-term solution for reducing elephant numbers within a protected area, translocation has the advantage that it can be used to establish new populations for both consumptive (e.g. game cropping and sport hunting), and non-consump tive (e.g. wildlife viewing), uses. A good example is that of the translocation of nearly 700 elephants (250 cull orphans and over 400 others) to the Save Valley Conservancy from the Gonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe, in order to relieve pressure on the ecosystem following a severe drought. The conservancy is a new private game reserve formed by 18 cattle ranchers who joined their land into a single management unit covering 3,200 square kilometres of Zimbabwe's south-eastern lowveld. A further benefit is that such ventures have demonstrated that wildlife restocking is economically competitive with livestock, but is less damaging to the ecosystem. Translocation does, however, carry a number of inherent problems that must be taken into account. A first problem is cost. As indicated above, translocation ranges from two to five times the cost of culling because of the need to pay for the capture, transport (which frequently requires specialized equipment), and release of the elephants. And where t ranslocation is from a state-owned to a privately owned park, there is a cost for the elephant itself. It is thus unlikely that translocation will become a long-term option, particularly given the increasingly difficult financial situation that wildlife m anagement authorities face throughout Africa. There are, as some have pointed out, higher priorities for using the scarce financial resources, namely: the payment of adequate salaries and service benefits to field staff; the maintenance of park infrastructure, including watering points for wildlife; the proper equipping of anti-poaching units and establishing intelligence networks; and increasingly, the establishment of systems for the equitable distribution of park revenues to the neighbouring communities. In the face of public pressure for elephant relocation there are some attempts to finance translocation by attracting funds from foreign donors. For example, as part of an effort to avoid culling in Kruger National Park, the South African National Parks Board recently created an elephant relocatio n fund in order to meet the costs as well as to purchase the necessary land. A second problem is that being transported can cause considerable stress for elephants, and thus translocation cannot be considered as entirely humane. In the Kruger National Park in 1994, for example, a number of matriarchs could not be loaded into the l orries and had to be left behind, while others broke out of the release site pens and had to be shot. Further studies have indicated that some translocated elephants suffer traumatic after-effects once they had been released into their new homes, such as extreme fear of, or aggression towards, humans, making them unsuitable for tourist viewing. Other behavioural disorders have also been recorded that raise serious questions about the value of translocation. In Pilanesberg and Borakalalo in South Africa, f or example, bulls that had been translocated as young calves became so aggressive on their reaching adulthood that they attacked and killed at least five black, and two white rhinos. An ironic outcome and hardly an acceptable fate for such highly endanger ed species. A third problem is that while some conservationists prefer to translocate rather than to cull, it should be recognized that translocation does not necessarily "save" elephants. For instance, a number of private land owners and local communities participat ing in the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe have expressed their interest in buying elephants for future trophy-hunting. A fourth problem is related to the release site, which must be chosen with considerable care, and ideally based on IUCN's Reintroduction Guidlines. These guidelines include ensuring that: the site is within the elephants' original range; the pressures tha t either reduced or eliminated the original elephant population (e.g. poaching) are no longer present; the habitats can sustain elephant populations; and that there exists the capacity for rigorous post-release monitoring of translocated elephants. Security for both elephant and human populations is a major consideration. For example, one of the recently proposed translocation sites for elephants from Zimbabwe was a national park in neighbouring Zambia, a park which had, and still has, a poaching pr oblem. From the standpoint of protecting humans from elephants there is the problem that the majority of potential release sites in South Africa are on relatively small private ranches located in heavily settled agricultural areas. The escape of elephants from these sites could be fatal to both people and elephants. The last major problem is that while translocation is an alternative to culling, the technique is really only a short-term approach to the much bigger task of managing elephant populations within confined protected areas. Translocation, if successful, mig ht simply transfer the problem from one site to another. That is, the recipient site may eventually experience its own "elephant problem". Moreover, there are only a limited number of potential homes on private land for elephants. The only planned translocation of family groups from Kruger National Park in 1996 were to other parks and reserves within the country. Whether or not translocation s will continue in the future now rests upon the ability of National Parks Boards to buy new land in addition to covering the basic transportation costs. But this requires money being put into non-use values as well as a growth in demand for live elephant s.
3.3 Contraception
Two methods of contraception are presently being studied in South Africa. The first is hormonal contraception, in which the implantation of the egg is blocked. The problem with this is that progesterone (the relevant hormone in most mammals) is not the pr imary hormone in elephant reproduction. This has meant that the use of RU486 as a progesterone blocking agent is of no use, with the result that further research of the entire endocrinal system is necessary. This is an enormous task as it involves checkin g approximately 34,000 hormones. The second method is that of immuno-contraception. This process involves developing antibodies that will bind to the zona pallucida and block sperm penetration. This technique has been used quite extensively in more than 90 mammal species. It involves vac cinating the animals for set periods of time. Given, however, that the method has been known to cause damage to the female reproductive system and may have more far-reaching effects, particularly on social structure, more research is still necessary. Anot her drawback of this method is that it is not particularly promising for large, free-ranging populations, being more appropriate for small, confined, and individually known populations (e.g. those on private land in South Africa). Despite the difficulties, the idea of elephant contraception is still considered by some researchers to have considerable potential, although at present, trials are being undertaken in only two countries (in Kenya and Sou th Africa).
3.4 Expanding elephant range
The problem of tangible benefits is an economic one. It is unlikely that elephants will be tolerated unless the returns for doing so exceed alternative land-use options, not something easily achieved. Firstly, the revenue from the consumptive use (e.g. sa fari hunting), or from their non-consumptive use (e.g. photographic tourism), must be relatively high; secondly the value of the land for other uses must be low; and thirdly, ownership of elephants must be enforceable. Apart from dispersal zones around protected areas, another way of expanding elephant range is to link protected areas that have been cut off from each other. For instance, elephants have always roamed between the swamps and grasslands of Kenya's Amboseli National Park and the montane forests of Tanzania's Mount Kilimanjaro, but their traditional migratory routes now take them across pastoral and cultivated land, a trek hazardous for both them and people. There is now a proposal to link the elephant ranges of Amboseli and Mount Kilimanjaro with a corridor, but whether or not this will be realized rests upon inter-governmental cooperation, and not least that of the local communities whose villages lie on, or adjacent to, the proposed route. On the whole, ho wever, corridors are still not the best solution as their shape maximizes the contact between elephants and people. That is, an elephant causeway through a sea of humanity cannot be considered a very practical approach. In summary, given the problems with dispersal zones and corridors, and the lack of land to extend the protected-areas system, the only real options for dealing with human-elephant conflict is to find ways in which land can be shared with elephants.
Next: Conservation Outside Protected Areas
![]()
|