SHEET 1A Print back to back with Sheet 1B

NAMIBIA NATIONAL FARMERS UNION

Joint Presidency Committee

NAMIBIA AGRICULTURAL UNION

ELEPHANT MANAGEMENT

Booklet designed by Rowan Martin based on a consultancy for the Joint Presidency Committee titled The North-West Elephants: Options for Management

2009

funded by

IN NORTH-WESTERN NAMIBIA

Page 20 (back cover)

Page 1 (front cover)

SHEET 1B Print back to back with Sheet 1A

This is an information booklet primarily for the farmers of the Kunene Region but also for the use of the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture The booklet is also a call to farmers to start organising themselves to undertake the recommended management measures. This will require the development of new institutions and preparation to take on the responsibilities and carry out the functions which go with elephant management (pages 16-18)

THE END

Page 2 (back of page 1)

Page 19 (back of page 20)

SHEET 2A Print back to back with Sheet 2B

ORGANISING FOR THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE Functions

These functions would largely be carried out by lowest tier in the institutional structure with the exception of the first one which requires consultation at all levels. 1. Sink Areas: The number, location, and size of sink areas in the Region should, in the first instance, be discussed at grass-roots level, then with neighbouring sink area groups and, finally, at the regional level. An interactive process is foreseen where the issue may be negotiated up and down the institutional structure for some time before there is consensus on the way forward. When there is consensus, the time will be appropriate to ask MET to declare the Sink Areas as HWC zones in terms of the 2009 HWC Policy. 2. Scheduling Management Operations: The stakeholder Groups referred to on page 16 should organise the timing and extent of elephant offtakes. Consultation amongst neighbouring Groups is probably desirable. 3. Assignation of work: Groups should allocate responsibilities and tasks amongst themselves relating to the elephant offtake. 4. Distribution of Benefits: A key function of the Groups is to devise systems for allocating the benefits of management so that all affected stakeholders receive their fair share. 5. Monitoring: Removal of elephants from the Sink Areas is underpinned by Adaptive Management (page 11). The objective of this management is to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This indicates meticulous record-keeping both of the animals removed from the Sink Areas and the elephant-related incidents in the areas surrounding the Sink Areas.

VISION
The Goal, Objectives and Strategy from the Namibia Elephant Management Plan (2005) are shown below
GOAL
Namibia wishes to carry the maximum number of elephants consistent with the conservation of biological diversity and the wishes of stakeholders with elephants on their land

SOCIAL OBJECTIVES 1. Reduce conflict between elephants and people 2. Ensure that elephants are a benefit to people

ECOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES
1. Increase elephant range 2. Conserve biodiversity

ECONOMIC OBJECTIVE
Achieve the full economic potential of elephants

Devolve rights to manage elephants to primary stakeholders

Address veterinary control fences

Address CITES constraints on trade

State and primary stakeholders form co-management institutions

STRATEGY

Implement co-management decisions using Adaptive Management

The present elephant problem in the north-west of Namibia has not altered these objectives

Page 18 (back of page 17)

Page 3 (back of page 4)

SHEET 2B Print back to back with Sheet 2A

INTRODUCTION
This project focuses on the elephants of Kunene Region, including Etosha National Park, Skeleton Coast National Park, communal land (Conservancies, Concessions and other communal land) and the private land farming area south of Etosha. These elephants are unique in Africa in that they have unrestricted access to a range of over 100,000km2 and include the famous desert elephants. The problems have to be addressed at the scale of a very large landscape.
12o -17o
1

ORGANISING FOR THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE Building Institutions continued

Scaling up In scaling up, the general principle should be applied that

No institution needs to be larger than the size of problem it has to deal with
This means that the majority of work involved in the elephant management will be undertaken by the grass-roots organisations and only when an issue affects other groups will it be referred to the next level of the institutional structure.

13o

14o

15o

16o

17o

2 5

Parks Concessions Conservancies

6

The principle of Jurisdictional Parsimony

The Group with responsibility for managing any particular Sink Area may involve one or more conservancies and people not organised into conservancies. In order to function effectively at the next tier of the institutional structure, each group will delegate authority to persons to represent them at this level and will expect these representatives to be accountable to them.

50 0

-18o

3 4 9 7 10 8 11 12 13

14

Private land Communal land

ETOSHA

-19o

CONSERVANCIES
1. Marienfluss 2. Kunene River 3. Orupembe

ON ET EL SK

15 17
19

500

-20o

16

20

18

21

40

-21

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Sanitatas Ruacana Uukwaluudhi Puros Sesfontein Okangundumba Ozondundu Anabeb Omatendeka Ehirovipuka #Khoadi-//Hoas Torra //Huab Doro !Nawas Uibasen //Audi Sorri Sorris

Rainfall Isohyets 300

-22o
2 00

T AS CO

The principle of Constituent Accountability

Finally, the entire institutional system requires the devolution of significant authority to the grass-roots organisations in order for it to function effectively. The higher tiers in the structure derive their power from the lower tiers which they represent.

30 0

14. Sheya Uushona

Kunene Region Boundary

10 0

-23o

The principle of Delegated Aggregation

Page 4 (back of page 3)

Page 17 (back of page 18)

SHEET 3A Print back to back with Sheet 3B

ORGANISING FOR THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE Building Institutions

This discussion of the institutional requirements for Kunene Region is by way of an example. Depending on METs decisions about the elephants in the region, the final structure could alter substantially. Ultimately, the stakeholders must organise the structure themselves. Scale: It will require a minimum of three organisational tiers to coordinate the proposed elephant management. The grass-roots institutions are set by the location of the sink areas (Groups 1-4 below) and would include all stakeholders likely to benefit from a given sink area. The intermediate tier allows coordination amongst geographically adjacent Groups. The final tier enables the institution to function at the level of Kunene Region as a whole.
KUNENE REGION

PROBLEM STATEMENT
The costs of the damage done by elephants in both the commercial farming area and the communal lands runs into thousands of dollars annually. The benefits which farmers are receiving from elephants do not come close to compensating them for their losses. Farmers are not free to defend their livelihoods from elephant depredations and the current arrangements for control of problem elephants are too tardy to be effective. Despite the impression of unlimited space, the north-west is an arid environment with a low carrying capacity for both humans and elephants. Elephants numbers are increasing outside the national park through their own breeding and presumed emigration from Etosha. The available range outside the national park is shrinking as the number of humans and domestic livestock increases. Water supplies in the communal land are being protected against elephants. Elephants are competing with livestock for food, water and living space, and are being forced to seek these resources wherever they can find them including the commercial farming area.

North-West

South-Central

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

DPWM

2 3 COMMUNAL LAND

4 PRIVATE LAND

This is an elephant population in extremis

PARKS

Diagram based on the sink areas shown in the map on page 11

Page 16 (back of page 15)

Page 5 (back of page 6)

SHEET 3B Print back to back with Sheet 3A

ANALYSIS
Carrying Capacities
ELEPHANTS

MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Throughout southern Africa elephant populations are unnaturally high. Evidence shows that elephant numbers have been controlled by humans for over a million years. Man has always been the super-predator for elephants. There is nothing natural about an unmanaged elephant population in a large national park it is missing its primary predator. The alternatives to destroying significant numbers of elephants are discussed below

STOCKING LEVEL km2/elephant

250 200 150 100

250

5
4.3

75 50
3.3 3.6

4.0

20 10
2.0 2.3

25
2.7

3.0

10 6

RATE OF INCREASE % pa

5
1.3

1.7

1
2 1

Provision of water for elephants would open up new areas for elephants in the communal lands and reduce the number of invasions into the commercial farming areas. But it would not solve the problem of elephant overpopulation. Translocation of entire elephant herds costs are too high and available areas to receive elephants are limited. Use of deterrents (e.g. Chilli peppers) is simply moving the problem from one place to another. Adapt farming methods: Although evidence indicates that wildlife is the highest-valued land use for low rainfall areas, there is little indication in Kunene Region that land use practice or lifestyles are changing to embrace it even in conservancies. To a large extent inadequate rights over wildlife are the cause. The new HWC Policy recognises this and aims for increased delegation of authority over wildlife to conservancies in order to make wildlife more attractive as a land use.

50

100

200

300

400

500

ANNUAL RAINFALL mm

Elephant stocking level and rate of growth in relation to rainfall

The Etosha elephant population is estimated to be between 2,000-2,500 animals with a growth rate of about 3.3% per annum. The population outside the park is about 800 animals. Most of the north-west has low rainfall and, according to the relationships in the diagram above, the carrying capacity for elephants is low (between 50-250km2 required per elephant) and population growth rates are unlikely to exceed 2.5% per annum.

Page 6 (back of page 5)

Page 15 (back of page 16)

SHEET 4A Print back to back with Sheet 4B

INCOME FROM MANAGEMENT

The figure shows the net US$ Stakeholders N$ annual income which might be 325,000 Total Net Income 2,356,000 derived from a single Sink Area 15,000 109,000 SKIN under the following assumptions: 1. The Sink Area is at least 2,500km2 (50x50km). 2. 50 elephants will be removed from the Sink Area per year (for at least three years). 3. One trophy bull to be hunted by a foreign client is included in the 50 elephants. The local community will get 50% of the net income (US$25,000). 4. The estimated income from ivory is based on real market prices. Present constraints under CITES may preclude such values. It is up to farmers to lobby Government to change this situation. The total net annual income is estimated at N$2.4 million from a single sink area. It is likely that there would at least three such sink areas in the communal lands and one in the commercial farming area. The location of the sink areas may be changed by the stakeholders over time.
25,000

Carrying Capacities ANALYSIS ELEPHANTS If there were no people in the Kunene Region, the potential elephant population is estimated in the table below using the carrying capacities from the diagram on the previous page.
Conservancies Area km 2 3,034 2,764 3,565 1,446 2,993 1,437 3,568 2,591 1,131 745 1,570 1,619 1,975 5,066 3,366 3,522 1,817 4,073 286 335 2,290 49,193 393 9,812 12,970 6,909 30,085 16,390 6,398 1,108 269 24,165 9,479 8,521 18,000 5,861 12,650 6,050 24,562 146,005 250 350 450 25 10 6 330 400 12 8 50 85 160 260 250 163 67 22 50 150 250 350 250 75 25 10 Rain mm 120 310 100 110 360 400 90 110 260 230 180 200 250 380 170 100 200 80 130 270 150 CC km2/ele 107 14 136 121 10 8 154 121 22 30 53 42 25 8 59 136 42 173 95 20 75 Elephants 28 197 26 12 312 189 23 21 51 25 30 38 80 598 57 26 43 23 3 17 31 1,830 2 131 526 672 1,331 66 39 17 12 133 795 1,122 1,918 238 1,231 983 2,451 7,663

HUNTING MEAT

181,000

35,000

254,000

Marienfluss Kunene River Orupembe Sanitatas Ruacana Uukwaluudhi Puros Sesfontein Okangundumba Ozondundu Anabeb Omatendeka Ehirovipuka Sheya Uushona Khoadi-//Hoas Torra //Huab Doro !Nawas Uibasen //Audi Sorri Sorris Subtotal Other Communal Land Rainfall <100mm Rainfall 100-200mm Rainfall 200-300mm Rainfall 300-400mm Subtotal Concessions Skeleton Coast Palmwag Etendeka Hobatere Subtotal Etosha Etosha West Etosha East Subtotal Private Land Rainfall 200-300mm Rainfall 300-400mm Rainfall 400-500mm Subtotal TOTALS

250,000

IVORY
Assumes real market prices

2,356,000

Page 14 (back of page 13)

Page 7 (back of page 8)

SHEET 4B Print back to back with Sheet 4A

ANALYSIS

Carrying Capacities

PEOPLE

The average land requirement per person across the rainfall range from 0-500mm is shown below. This is the carrying capacity for any given area taking into account land for livestock. By multiplying the number of people in the area by the land requirement per person for the particular rainfall category, the amount of land left over for elephant can be calculated. A population growth rate of 2.5% pa has been used for the Kunene Region.
500 400 300 200 150 100 50 20 10 5
4

HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT POLICY

All of the recommendations on the previous page are consistent with the new Namibian NATIONAL POLICY ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT promulgated in 2009. The policy provides for
SINK AREAS Declaration of areas with chronic wildlife problems as HWC zones (Section 2.4.1 page 4).

LAND REQUIRED PER PERSON (ha)

370 250 170 100 65 38 22 13 8

MANAGEMENT BY FARMERS Policy promotes selfreliance (2.3.8 page 2) and increased delegation of authority over wildlife to conservancies to make wildlife more attractive as a land use (2.4.2 page 5). DIRECT BENEFITS TO FARMERS Policy intends that the economic value of wildlife should be used to offset the losses caused by them (2.3.9 page 2) and provides the means to directly offset the losses of communities and individual farmers caused to livestock and crops (2.4.6.2.1 page 1). INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT Policy will build the capacity of all stakeholders to develop HWC management plans (2.4.6.1.1) and promote the equitable distribution of benefits so that individuals who suffer losses can benefit from wildlife income (2.4.6.2.2 page 14).

2 1

50

100

200

300

400

500

ANNUAL RAINFALL mm

The number of people in the communal lands is predicted to increase from some 140,000 in 1995 to 260,000 in 2020 . The land available to elephants shrinks from 20,000km2 to under 10,000km2 and the potential elephant population declines from 500 to less than 200 over the same period (see figure on the next page). The year in which each conservancy loses its capacity to carry elephants sustainably is shown in the map on the next page.

Page 8 (back of page 7)

Page 13 (back of page 14)

SHEET 5A Print back to back with Sheet 5B

ANALYSIS
AREA AVAILABLE TO ELEPHANTS (sqkm x 1,000)

Carrying Capacities
Communal land population, land available for elephants and potential elephant population 1995-2020
We are here now

PEOPLE
POTENTIAL ELEPHANT POPULATION (numbers)
500

SOURCE-SINK MANAGEMENT

20

18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9

HUMAN POPULATION (numbers x 1,000)

19

300

450

250

400

350 200 300 150

ETOSHA

250

200 100

1995

2000

2005

2010 YEAR

2015

2020

Sink Area

SK C ON ET EL ST OA
-18
o

12o -17o
1

13o

14o

15o

16o

17o

CONSERVANCIES

2 5 6

Year in which conservancy lost/ will lose capacity to carry elephants 6. 8. 10. 17. 5. 1980 Uukwaluudhi Sesfontein Ozondundu //Huab 1987 Ruacana 1989 Anabeb Omatendeka Uibasen 1990 //Audi 1997 #Khoadi-//Hoas 1998 Okangundumba

3 4

Parks
14 9 7 10 8 11 12 13

Concessions Conservancies
-19
o

ETOSHA

Private land Communal land

C ON ET EL SK

11. 12. 19. 20.

15

Kunene Region study area

-20

15.
16
19

17

20

ST OA

9.
21

18

2002 14. Sheya Uushona 2004 18. Doro !Nawas 2010

-21o

Parks

21. Sorri Sorris

In the event that source-sink management is unable to solve the human-elephant conflict in the communal lands and commercial farming areas, management attention would have to be turned to the elephant population in Etosha National Park.

Concessions

-22

Private land Communal land Kunene Province Boundary

2013 16. Torra 2017 13. Ehirovipuka 1. 3. 2. 4. 7. 2020+ Marienfluss Orupembe Kunene River Sanitatas Puros

-23

Page 12 (back of page 11)

Page 9 (back of page 10)

SHEET 5B Print back to back with Sheet 5A

ANALYSIS

Population Simulation Model

RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT
The elephant population in Kunene Region should be reduced. This should be achieved through Source-Sink Management. Features of the proposed management sheme are outlined below
A number of sink areas would be delineated in the Region by the farmers themselves. These would be areas where elephants are in direct conflict with the prevailing land use and are not wanted. Examples of sink areas are shown in the map opposite. Sink area boundaries may be altered by the stakeholders. Elephants entering sink areas would be destroyed by the farmers or their appointed agents. Suitable animals would be hunted as trophies at the discretion of the farmers. All benefits from trophy hunting and elephant products (ivory, skin, meat) would accrue directly to the farming communities. Suitable institutions to define sink areas, allocate management responsibilities and ensure equitable distribution of benefits would need to be developed amongst the farming communities.

LETON COAST SKE

A simulation model has been used to COMM CIES UN VAN AL examine the expected changes in the ER LA S N ND O C numbers of people and elephants in the Kunene Region over the period 1995-2020, taking into i on at r account carrying capacities ig 225 Em and population growth rates 2,000 66 for people and elephants. 66 CONCESSIONS Emigration is assumed to take place from Etosha into the communal lands west and north-west of Etosha. When the carrying capacity for elephants in any part of the communal lands is exceeded, a proportion of the elephants are assumed to move into the private land south of Etosha or into Erongo Region.
Im m ig r at i on

CO NS E

RV AN C I ES

AL UN COMM

ND LA

ERONGO REGION

40

The elephant carrying capacity of Etosha (2000), Skeleton Coast (66) and the communal land concessions (66) is assumed to be fixed. The model deals individually with 22 conservancies and 4 parcels of other communal land, each with its own human population which increases as each year of the model advances. The land available for elephants is recalculated every year as the available range decreases. The sustainable elephant population in the year 2010 is 225 animals although the actual population is 545. In the Year 2010 40 elephants are expected to move into the Kamanjab farming area and 40 into Erongo Region. The model satisfies the few data available the numbers and rate of growth of the elephant population from 1995-2000 match independent estimates and the numbers entering the farming areas are consistent with farmers reports.

PR

Year 2010

IVA TE

LAND

40

HA OS ET

The system would be underpinned by Adaptive Management (see below). The objectives would be to reduce conflict with elephants and derive substantial benefits. The hypothesis is provided by the modelling results in this study
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
OBJECTIVES HYPOTHESIS
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

FEEDBACK

LOOPS

ECOSYSTEM

Monitor ecological, economic and social effects of management

Page 10 (back of page 9)

Page 11 (back of page 12)