Conservation and Management Strategy for the Elephant in Kenya

More documents

Recommendations

Info

48 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR THE ELEPHANT IN KENYA 3.3.4 Human Elephant Conflict (HEC) [ BELOW ] Plate 36. The bull Yaeger checking out old tracking collars in Save the Elephants research camp, Samburu - Iain Douglas-Hamilton, Save the Elephants Enhance HEC mitigation by involving stakeholders at all levels in the use of appropriate site-specific methods. Rationale and considerations It is essential, if elephants are to be tolerated in landscapes that are also occupied by people, that their effect on economic costs and loss of property is minimised within the context of rural livelihoods. It is, of course, the case that elephant damage is just one, and often a relatively minor, reason for the failure of crops or livestock husbandry in Kenya, and the issue of HEC should be viewed in the broader context of agricultural production and development. Nevertheless, the elephant is the most significant conflict species in Kenya and causes the greatest number of conflict cases in a number of hotspots, namely: Tsavo East and West, Lamu, Laikipia, Narok and Transmara. The causes of conflict vary, arising from a lack of land-use and land-tenure policy and demographic changes. Rapid human population expansion along with increasing number of elephants, that are concentrated in a few zones, results in encroachment of each in their respective areas, with subsequent increasing competition for pasture and water leading to damage, injury and killing. Elephants ‘know’ secure areas: by creating security in former range areas with low human density, these areas will be opened up enabling a wider distribution of elephant across Kenya, and thus reducing conflict. To date, making conflict mitigation sustainable has been a challenge, through involving the affected communities in the activities themselves, with farm-based deterrence methods and maintenance of fencing (LWF, 2002; MGM, 1999). Control shooting of offending animals has been used as a last resort. The killing of elephants, whether by control officers or affected citizens taking the law into their own hands, must be approached with caution, since the surviving members of the elephant population will be alarmed and/or angry. They will now associate people with the death of their companions and there could be an increased risk of aggressive interactions. There is a need for specific area strategies, mandatory acquisition of elephant corridors, formation of conflict resolution communities and conclusion of the new Wildlife Bill as soon as possible. This will provide a framework for minimising HEC through education, awareness, establishing linkages and community support for conservation and coexistence with wildlife. Mitigation can be achieved through site-specific methods, community mobilization for self-help groups and deterrence, building community capacity for their involvement in wildlife management, compensation and quick processing of HEC cases, implementing corporate social responsibility, and by supporting enterprise nature-based projects and business. KWS can help through enhanced devolution, improved KWS presence in hot spots identified through MIKE and other intelligence systems, improved relations with communities and stakeholders with formation of a rapid response team, translocation interventions and use of protective fencing, as well as attention to education, water, health and enterprise. A decision-making system for identifying problems, approaches and monitoring of
CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR THE ELEPHANT IN KENYA 49 success or failure will be needed (Hoare, 2001). Participatory land use planning and zoning in partnership with KWS and other relevant Ministries should accompany HEC approaches, so that reduction of losses to elephants is not simply accompanied by greater expansion of intensive agriculture or pastoralism, and thus greater loss of elephant habitat. NGOs working with elephants can assist through: a) helping monitor elephant movements using GPS tracking collars; b) provision of geo-fencing; c) studying elephant behaviour and developing effective deterrent methodologies; d) assessing impacts of lodge development and settlement; and e) bringing to the attention of land use planners and licensors the harm caused by the use of key resource areas, especially in and around PAs, by livestock, community and enterprise which drive elephant to raid and damage crops and water sources of a wider community in buffer zones and beyond. The challenges to implementing the strategy in a comprehensive manner are vast, but if not tackled, the casualty will in the end be the elephant, and with much human suffering on the way. Target Action Timeline Actors Indicators 4.1.1 Assess, review and recommend appropriate land uses in specific areas. Ongoing KWS, relevant Government Ministries, conservation and development organisations, communities • Land use maps and recommendations produced and provided to decision-making framework 4.1.2 Review, recommend, and continue to lobby for changes in legislation for conservation-compatible land use. Ongoing KWS, relevant Government Ministries and departments, Civil Society • Recommendations approved, published and used for lobbying 4.1.3 Sensitise District Environmental Committees (DEC) on elephant and wildlife issues. By end 2012 KWS, stakeholders • Number of meetings held, minutes documented and circulated 4.1 Conservation compatible land use in areas of existing or potential HEC. 4.1.4 Use District Environmental Committees for constituency-level cross-sectoral planning. 4.1.5 Initiate process for developing community conservancies in appropriate areas. Ongoing 2013 onwards DEC, KWS, relevant stakeholders Communities, KWS, other relevant stakeholders, NGOs and private sector • KWS/Stakeholder presence at DEC meetings, minutes documented and circulated • Number of conservancy development processes initiated 4.1.6 Conduct cost-benefit analyses of elephant-friendly crops through pilot studies and promote viable solutions. By end 2013 KWS, relevant stakeholders, research and conservation organisations • Report on cost-benefit analyses produced and used for promoting viable solutions through exchange visits etc. 4.1.7 Sensitise NEMA on wildlife and elephant issues. By end 2012 KWS, NEMA • Number of meetings held, minutes documented and circulated 4.1.8 Ensure new developments in elephant distribution range (including fences, structures etc.) undergo EIAs and that existing developments undergo an environmental audit. Ongoing NEMA, KWS, stakeholders • Proportion of new developments based on EIAs • Proportion of existing developments with audits undertaken
Page 1 and 2:
Conservation and Management Strateg
Page 3 and 4:
[ RIGHT ] Plate 5. Chilli bush used
Page 5 and 6:
CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT STRATEG
Page 7 and 8:
PLATES CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
xiv [ TOP RIGHT ] Plate 10. Samburu
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
“ CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT STR
Page 21 and 22: CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT STRATEG
Page 23 and 24: [ FIGURE 1 ] Plan-at-a-glance struc
Page 71: CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT STRATEG
show all

Conservation and Management Strategy for the Elephant in Kenya

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?