“There is a Shangaan proverb that says the elephant is ours,” claims Michael Masuluke, a representative from a community living next door to the Kruger National Park. “It means that if there is a job to be done, it must be done by all of us.”
His words echoed the sentiments of about 200 serious-minded environmentalists gathered at the Great Elephant Indaba in the Kruger last week. They also encapsulated the new ethos at South African National Parks (SANParks), which reaches out widely — and particularly to rural communities — for a broad mandate on managing the country’s elephant populations.
In the decade since culling was stopped in national parks, the changing of the guard at SANParks has introduced a different driving force. The emphasis now is on “people and parks”, and it is to communities, in particular those living on the borders of parks, that the organisation looks for its mandate.
Science does not provide the answers. Scientists are at odds about the impact elephants have on vegetation — whether they are the prime agents of habitat degradation and even whether, in the long term, the changes elephants make are a good or bad thing. External factors like global warming add to the confusion.
“You can’t use science to prove anything because there is always the chance it could be disproved in the next year or the year after that,” said David Cummings, an international biodiversity expert and keynote speaker at the indaba.
In the absence of scientific certainty, decisions are being based on value judgements. Political, economic and social dynamics are the new imperative.
The original decision to stop culling in 1994 was based on lack of scientific evidence about the impact elephants were having on ecosystems. In 1999 Kruger park scientists produced a detailed elephant management plan that divided the park into six different eco-zones and argued in favour of culling up to 1 000 elephants a year.
This plan was shelved after former minister of environmental affairs and tourism Mohammed Valli Moosa placed a moratorium on culling during his tenure. His successor, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, has to review that decision and present whatever is decided to Cabinet.
David Mabunda, CEO of SANParks, said the decision not to implement the 1999 plan was political — and so by implication will be a decision to resume culling. “Elephant management deserves special attention because it is no longer a scientific subject alone, but a socio-economic and political issue of international stature,” he said.
In the interim, legislation has been put in place to ensure that SANParks must consult widely with interested parties before it submits its recommendations to the minister in April 2005. This legislation includes the Protected Areas Act of 2003 and the Biodiversity Act of 2004.
Community representatives who attended the Great Elephant Indaba last week came to discuss “an African solution to an African problem”, the theme of the gathering. A broad range of communities from the Southern African region was represented, but a special case was made for communities living next door to reserves.
They argued that African people respect elephants and want to see them as part of their lives, but a management plan needs to encourage more harmony between communities and elephants.
“Local communities have a long history of living with nature and with elephants. They have an understanding that is not always well understood or accepted within a scientific paradigm. They are probably better able to ‘think like a mountain’ than most,” said Julian Sturgeon of ResourceAfrica, an NGO that focuses on community-based natural resource management.
None of the community representatives had an ethical problem with culling elephants, but they insisted on knowing how it would be done and who would benefit. They encouraged animal welfare groups to stimulate robust debate around humane killing methods.
Giving the meat from culls to local communities would not suffice. From 1967 to 1994, when a total of 16 000 elephants were culled in the Kruger, SANParks raised about R7-million a year from selling the by-products and meat was sold to neighbouring communities at low prices.
The representatives articulated more sophisticated and pressing demands among communities. There are between 1,2-million and 1,5-million people living on the borders of the Kruger park, and many communities want to benefit directly in terms of jobs created by culling and from the by-products.
Weeks before the indaba, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites) gave South Africa the go-ahead to trade in elephant hides and hair for commerical purposes. Ivory will remain a state asset, but Cites has postponed until March 2006 a decision on whether South Africa can sell its ivory stockpiles.
Community representatives said they were interested in expanding habitats for wildlife, but this had to be linked to poverty alleviation. Communities are also keen to participate in ecotourism as tour guides and operators.
“If culling has to be done for ecological reasons, it must benefit the neighbours who are most affected,” said Masuluke. His community lives on tribal trust lands adjoining the Kruger and they are often pestered by wildlife that breaks through the fencing.
As if to underline his point, two escapee elephants were shot in trust lands while delegates were busy at the Great Elephant Indaba. Masuluke was philosophical: “Another of our sayings is that an elephant’s tusks will never be heavier than the elephant. This means that where there is a problem, there is always a solution.”