News

Dear Editor (Sunday Independent)

Elephant Management, Scientific Opinion and the Opinion of Scientists

The article by Professor Extraordinaire J D Skinner in the Sunday Independent of 2 October, together with the great diversity of viewpoints on the elephant issue put forward recently by many of our respected scientists, prompted me to write to clarify the standpoint of South African National Parks (SANParks). It is well known that debates on population control and culling have been bedevilled by confusion resulting from failure to clearly distinguish value judgements from science. Scientific opinion and the opinion of scientists are not one and the same. Unfortunately for those of us who are not always at the coal face of science, it is all too easy to assume that the opinion of scientists represents scientific opinion. It is incumbent on responsible scientists to be very clear and honest about the difference.

The late Graeme Caughley, world renowned animal population ecologist, made the following much quoted reply when asked whether or not a population eruption should be contained:

“This is not a scientific question. I can boast of no qualification that would make my opinion any more valuable than those of my two immediate neighbours, a garage mechanic on the one hand and an Air Vice-Marshall on the other.”

With this statement Caughley signalled his determination to make clear the distinction between the technical aspects on which scientists are qualified to pass judgment and the values and preferences which require societal judgement. Let us not forget this lesson in the process of reaching a decision on the management of elephants.

Statements such as that made by Professor Skinner that “there is not a shred of evidence published in the primary literature that elephants adversely affect biodiversity” are potentially very misleading and laden with value judgements. They are misleading in that they ignore the considerable body of scientific literature demonstrating clearly the impact that elephants, and indeed many other species of large mammalian herbivores, can have on their habitat. It is well documented in the scientific literature that elephants can greatly influence ecological processes, alter the species composition of ecosystems and have in some cases caused losses, or have severely threatened, plant and animal species in certain protected areas.

Such statements are also value laden in that they imply that, before culling can be undertaken in any given protected area, it is an obligation for conservation authorities to demonstrate scientifically, to some unspecified level of certainty, that elephants will have adverse effects on biodiversity in that protected area. The danger of this standpoint is that, given the complexity and uncertainties of natural systems, irreparable biodiversity losses will have occurred by the time indisputable evidence is at hand.

It has become clear to us in the process of consultation with stakeholders that people differ enormously in their response to this particular risk. To some no risk to biodiversity could ever justify culling. Others urgently call for culling on the basis of what they know of the risks. Ecologists with an intimate knowledge of savanna ecosystems in general, and of the situation in the Kruger National Park in particular, are almost as polarized on the issue as non-scientific stakeholders. Some, like Professor Skinner, advocate more research before culling. Others urge for culling as a precaution, supported by ongoing research. This polarization is not surprising at all, it simply reflects the fact that responses to the risk of biodiversity losses are all about values, and people will differ, whether they be scientists or anyone else.

Towards the end of his letter, Professor Skinner accepts that “perhaps an annual 7 % rise in the elephant population does pose problems for Kruger Park”; that “certainly, contraception on such a large scale is impractical and can be applied to restrict growth only in small herds on private game reserves”, and; that: “reducing the elephants in the park may eventually be necessary” as long as ” when that time arrives, research on every aspect of elephant biology by university scientists should be encouraged”. Sadly though, Professor Skinner seems to suggest only “˜university scientists’ and not “˜park biologists’ are good enough to advise the public.

Professor Skinner reminds the public that “one must remember that a culture of culling large game has been inherent in this park since its inception” suggesting that any culling of large mammals, and in this case the elephant, is intended to keep a “˜culling culture going’. However, Professor Skinner does not “˜remind’ the public why the culling of “˜all species of large carnivores’ and later “˜buffalo, wildebeest and zebras’ was stopped.

Maybe Professor Skinner does not endorse the concept of adaptive management, which sets out that human beings have generally prospered by taking decisions, both good and bad, and that while good decisions continued to be refined in the quest for best practice, bad ones were quickly discarded. Central to this “˜learn-as-we-go’ is the environmental model called “˜adaptive management approach’. The park management stopped culling other species because they realised that there was no need to regulate a self-regulating system at the scale of KNP (slightly larger than Swaziland) where “˜predator-prey relations’ and a host of other environmental factors such as food availability, rainfall variations, and diseases, have a deterministic influence.

It remains to address Professor Skinner’s statement that we regard the Kruger National Park as “˜our farm’ and that we are not receptive to external scientists. Nothing could be further from the truth. The elephant management plan for the Kruger National Park will be formulated as part of the revision of the overall park management plan in accordance with the Protected Areas Act. We have established an external scientific reference group to assist with this. We will take into account not only the biodiversity of the Kruger National Park but also the way in which the Park complements the biodiversity outside the park, and important consideration given the impact of expanding human development. In accordance with the Act the plan will be open to inputs from stakeholders and interested parties, and subject to approval by the Minister. Further to that, there are over 200 external scientists participating in KNP research alone, including those with opposing views from us, so I think it would be justifiable to assert that the Professor is also being a little bit “˜economical with the truth’ on this point, probably in a bid to justify his points.

Ironically, while Professor Skinner criticises what he calls “˜farmers’ for introducing waterholes in the park, he advices the same “˜farmers’ to introduce “˜a lot of water points in Mozambique to induce the elephants to emigrate into the neighbouring Transfrontier Park”. This is ridiculous when one considers that we don’t know enough about dispersal patterns of elephants to predict them with any certainty. We know they typically have home ranges within which they prefer to remain, but how they respond to dispersal opportunities seems to be very variable. It is probable that if they find sufficient forage in their familiar home range they will stay there indefinitely, but if forage reserves become depleted they will disperse and look for better conditions. Under conditions of over population and resource depletion, elephant groups with home ranges on the west of KNP are most unlikely to move eastwards, across the home ranges of other elephant groups, to colonize the transfrontier park. It is far more likely that they will disperse westwards, coming into conflict with human development. Of course this is happening currently, which we know is the probable reason for the spate of foot and mouth outbreaks since the year 2000. The word “˜induce’ makes us realise the inherent conflict that Professor Skinner has, and here he has summarised our submission to the public well: that in order to manage for a certain desired objective, management may have to “˜induce’ certain actions.

In conclusion, the issue of elephant management is a matter of societal values. It will be informed by science but it is not a scientific question and will not be decided by scientists. Nor, I must emphasise, will it be decided by SANParks. It will be decided on the basis of public consultation in accordance with our new legislation governing biodiversity conservation and protected areas, with the Minister: Environmental Affairs and Tourism bearing the ultimate decision-making authority. We have been accused of bias. Of course we have an opinion, we do not like the prospect of elephant culling in the Kruger National Park at all, but believe that it is our duty in the best interests of biodiversity conservation and our neighbouring communities. Irrespective of our views, there is a democratic and consultative process underway to arrive at a decision. We are proud to be part of this process and will do our best to contribute to its success.

Dr. David Mabunda
Chief Executive
South African National Parks (SANParks)
P.O. Box 787
PRETORIA
Republic of South Africa
0001
web: http://www.sanparks.org/
Tel: +27 12 426 5000/1/2/3
Fax: +27 12 343 9959