Conservation and Management Strategy for the Elephant in Kenya

22 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR THE ELEPHANT IN KENYA
3. Management of the role of elephants in ecosystems
While some felt that research should define a ‘carrying capacity’, or single target figure for population size, most
recognised that elephants need to move through landscapes and that problems are caused when they are
confined. The concept of a “correct number” of animals is now recognised as having limited value in elephant
management (Caughley, 1976; du Toit et al., 2003; Lindsay, 1993; Owen-Smith et al., 2006). The approach should
be to manage their relationship with habitats through allowing dispersal, largely by encouraging communities to
accept co-existence and through developing means to mitigate adverse impacts on human security and livelihoods.
In the case of enclosed populations, some favoured translocation, but were concerned about the expense and the
disturbance. Others felt that contraception might work, but that it is still an unproven technique and is also intrusive.
A significant number felt that in small populations with no future, the elephants should be removed entirely, though
others felt that this was too drastic.
4. Habitat loss and fragmentation
It is generally recognised that elephants should not be confined inside small areas, as they will, sooner or later,
dramatically modify the available resources. While some stakeholders suggested that resources such as waterpoints
should be provided within PAs to keep elephants within them, most agreed that elephants should be allowed to
move outside PAs, with buffer zones and corridors kept free of incompatible land use practices. This securing of
habitat linkage must involve extensive work with communities and landowners, both to gain their agreement and to
protect their livelihoods. Land use planning is an unavoidable component, if not indeed a prerequisite, for successful
maintenance of a human-elephant landscape and must be undertaken at all levels, in a ‘vertical integration’
approach. Efforts should be made to harmonise the policies of different government ministries, so that conservation
is taken seriously and does not conflict with other directives.
5. Human-elephant conflict / coexistence
There is a great deal of attention focused on conflict between people and wildlife in general, and people and
elephants in particular, with high, and growing, incidence in several areas of the country. With statements made by
politicians and extensive media coverage, there is a need for accurate verification of the scale of elephant crop failure
(and property damage) in relation to other factors causing crop failure, such as impact by other species including
rodents, birds and insects and the effects of drought or flooding. Methods for mitigating conflict include: better land
use planning, electric fencing, farm-based early warning and deterrence methods, and ‘control’ shooting; no single
method works in all cases, but it is important that practitioners are well-trained and responsive. Compensation or
consolation schemes are seen as important for the livelihoods and goodwill of affected families, but are prone to
inefficiency and capitalisation problems, and also are reactive and not preventive. When land use planning policy is
implemented, it shall act as a preventive and a long-term solution to the HEC. Insurance funds contributed by the
government, commercial tourism operators, NGOs and or local stakeholders are seen as a way to provide finance
and, literally, buy-in to the process. Devolution of rights and responsibilities to communities and landowners for
protecting their property is seen as crucial to any successful approach.
6. Elephant contribution to local livelihoods
Livelihood benefits linked to conservation of elephant habitat are seen as important for creating and maintaining
the appreciation and valuation of elephants, and offsetting opportunity costs of alternate land uses. These
potential benefits fall into two main areas: sharing of PA revenues with local landowners and direct revenue
generation by communities and landowners themselves. Revenue sharing from PAs has the advantage of linking
them to surrounding land use, but per capita returns to landowners are likely to be small, suffer from problems of
transparency, could be perceived as a ‘handout’ and, it is felt, should go directly to communities rather than through
county councils to avoid political interference.