ELEPHANTS & IVORY

society is willing to tolerate, the situation is
usually characterized as “the elephant problem”
or discussed under the rubric of “Human elephant
conflict” (HEC).
The “elephant problem” originally referred to
the situation in southern and eastern Africa where
locally high densities of elephants were blamed
for destroying vegetation, and having detrimental
impacts on other species, in conservation areas
like national parks and protected areas. 73 High
elephant densities are principally caused by
human activities, including the construction
of fences, 74 the provisioning of artificial water
sources, the fragmentation of elephant habitats,
and conflicts with people over land use (a process
sometimes described as “movement restriction”). 75
All such activities restrict elephant movements
and counter natural mechanisms that would
otherwise limit elephant population growth.
In recent years, the discussion of too many
elephants has been expanded to include human-
elephant conflicts in both Africa and Asia. These
conflicts include damage to crops and gardens
and, on occasion, result in the deaths of both
humans and elephants. 76
In order to mitigate the consequences of locally
high densities of elephants, we have choices.
We can treat the symptoms – high elephant
densities – through lethal culling or translocation
programs, or the use of birth control, none of
which offer a satisfactory and long-lasting solution
to the problems. 77 Alternatively, we can choose
to understand better the causes of locally high
elephant densities and take appropriate steps to
find more permanent solutions. 78
Improving the situation for both elephants and
people is admittedly a complex undertaking but
there are signs of progress. In southern Africa,
there is growing evidence that the “elephant
problem” can be mitigated by removing fences and
artificial watering holes, and allowing elephants
access to movement corridors throughout a
region, independent of national borders. 79 Such
actions allow elephants to roam more naturally,
thereby reducing local densities, and permitting
natural processes to limit their numbers 80 and,
hence, their real or perceived impacts on the
environment and biodiversity.
In eastern Africa, where land tenure of
elephant range is in the hands of private
ownership – small or large scale individual
owners, or communal ownership (referred to
as group ranches or cooperative associations)
– the solution lies in encouraging land-owners
to accept co-existence by developing means to
mitigate adverse impacts on human security and
livelihoods.
In Kenya, private land-owners have over the
past ten years dedicated one million hectares of
their land to wildlife conservancies, most of which
are critical elephant corridors and/or dispersal
areas. This is an approach that Kenyan authorities
are encouraging with land-owners having
recognized the success of Asian countries which –
despite high human population densities – have a
policy of maintaining elephant corridors that link
critical habitat areas.
In addition to reducing elephant densities
locally, an understanding of the elephants’ critical
habitat also suggests, more broadly, that HEC would
be reduced, for example, if human settlements
were not built in the middle of traditional elephant
corridors, and if agricultural activities were
restricted in critical elephant habitats.
Improving the situation for both elephants
and people is a complex undertaking. While
acknowledging the social, political and economic
realities, it is clear that science has much to
contribute to the discussion, if only we would
incorporate evidence-based scientific advice into
policy and management decisions, rather than
clinging to failed approaches (e.g. culling) and
experience 81 to guide our actions. 82
51
© IFAW/D. Willetts/Tsavo National Park, Kenya