Kruger National Park (KNP) is one of the most famous national parks in the world. Its popularity is greatly due to the diversity of plant, animal, and aquatic species residing within its boundaries, as well as being one of the few fenced in National Parks in the world. It is located in the northeastern part of South Africa. In the recent years, citizens, private organizations, and Kruger officials have realized that the African Elephant (Loxodonta africana) can and is playing a large role in biodiversity of the park. Kruger National Park’s mission statement is to "acquire and maintain a system of indigenous species that benefit the nation and in doing so they will maintain biodiversity of the park, provide human benefits, and wilderness qualities and that they will create a balance between the three" (Whyte et al. 1995). In following this mission statement, park officials cannot manage for one species alone, but must take a holistic management view of the park. However, in recent years due to the further advancement of science, park officials have realized that elephants play a key role in the health of the ecosystem. As the largest of the mammals that roam within Kruger’s boundaries, a population growth could manipulate the habitat to the detriment of the other species in the park. Poaching caused a need for Kruger to become a fenced-in facility, limiting the range in which elephants can grow and facilitate their natural coarse of life.

In historical content, KNP was thought to have no elephants in 1902 after a period of great abuse of wildlife resources. However, in 1905 an elephant spoor was found. The elephant population increased steadily from that time until about 1967 when the population had an enormous growth. It went from approximately 2400 elephants in 1964 to 6600 elephants in 1967. Some thought the population increased almost two fold. However, 1967 was the first year in which helicopters were used in doing elephant counts, making it seem that the prior counts had been seriously underestimated. All this time, culling was being used to reduce elephant populations in areas where elephants had become too abundant. The complete understanding of the elephant social system was not fully understood and it is now understood that culling one or two elephants in a herd of many may be more detrimental to the entire herd.

  During the past thirty years, park officials tried to maintain a balance of 7,500 elephants in the park. In recent years there has been more understanding of the role elephants play in manipulating the habitat. Park officials have tried to adopt a new policy dealing strictly with the management of elephants and incorporate it as part of the broader management plan for the entire KNP. Elephant migrations to where food is have been a crucial component in adopting a policy that manages for the entire ecosystem and not just elephants and their numbers.

There were four main principals in which the Proposed Elephant Management Plan is based. The first is that ecosystems are not static and that they change over time due to what animals are on them, i.e. elephants, and that this is a natural and desirable phenomenon. Second, elephants are key indicators of habitat modification and thus can contribute to biodiversity. Third, if elephant populations are not confined they will continue to grow until they have negative detrimental impacts on the ecosystems biodiversity. Finally, elephants should not be viewed in isolation of this plan but as an integral part of the broader system and managed in conjunction with other plans and processes of the broader KNP management plan.

Park officials have named the elephant as a keystone species in the Kruger ecosystem. They have come to realize that elephant populations have broader effects on other species and biodiversity within the park if not carefully managed. Managing the elephant is now a key component in maintaining KNP’s mission statement and thus providing a holistic approach in maintaining biodiversity for the entire park ecosystem and all living things that reside within it.

Vegetation

The KNP consists of 1,948,528 hectares of Mpumalanga, Africa and is approximately 217.5 miles long and 37.3 miles wide. The park occupies 5 botanical divisions. The environment and food decide the variety and span of wildlife in the division boundary.

The hottest, most arid division is also the park’s largest area. It extends north of the Olifants River. This division’s vegetation is dominated by the Mopane tree, which has a strong tolerance for alkaline soil and infrequent rainfall. This tolerant tree is nutritious and apart of many species’ diets such as Mopane worms, Antelopes and Elephants.

The second largest division is that which lies south of the Olifants River on the eastern side of the park. The dominant trees in this area are the acacia thorn trees. This division has more rainfall and thus more nutrient rich compared to the area more northern along the Olifants River. Its grasses offer an excellent source of nutrients to grazing herds such as Impala, Zebra, Wildebeest, Buffalo and Giraffe.

The third largest division is the area between the Olifants and Crocodile rivers, found to the west of the Acacia area. This area also provides nutritious grazing and Antelope are found here. The Red-bush willow tree is also found here.

Just west of this area is the fourth largest division, lying between the Crocodile and Sabie rivers. This area receives approximately 760 mm of rain a year and is densely forested. Many varieties of trees flourish here including Acacias, Combretums, Giant sycamore figs, Mkhlus, Maroelas, Kiaats; and such flowering trees as the White pear and Red or Orange kaffirbooms.

The last and smallest division lies in the valleys of the Luvuvhu and Limpopo rivers, along the park’s northern border. This area consists of Wild figs, Fever trees, Ebony, Mahagony, Ironwood, Wild seringa and Baobabs. This area is referred to the valley of the giants.

This park has unparalleled species diversity. There are 300 types of trees, 49 species of fish, 33 types of amphibians, 114 types of reptiles, 507 species of birds and 147 species of mammals in the park.

Topography

Most of the park is a flat area consisting of bush and savannah. The height above sea level varies between 839 meters to 442 meters. The central part reaches 260 meters and the lowest point at the gorge of the Sabie River is 122 meters above sea level.

KNP has two major rivers known as Limpopo and Crocodile. The Crocodile River forms the southern boundary and the Limpopo River forms the northern boundary. Geologically, KNP is roughly divided from north to south by a sandstone ridge. The western half consists of granite and dolorite, and the eastern half consists mainly of basaltic formations.

The climate is sub-tropical with summer rains. The average daily high temperature during the month of January is 30 degrees C and 23 degrees C during July. The annual rainfall varies from 700mm in the south to 400mm in the north. The rainy season of KNP starts around September and lasts until March or April, followed by a period of very little rainfall. About 80% of the precipitation occurs in the form of fleeting thunderstorms and it is very erratic.

• To conserve all elements of bio-diversity within the park, not focusing on one single species. This goal would serve to broaden the range of ecological niches in the park by creating a landscape that ranges in species and habitat types.

• To commit the park’s role in managing so that tourism needs are equitable with diversity needs. Which would mean that large and rare animals that are attractive to tourists would not be eliminated from any areas in the park.

In order to achieve these goals, the park service has also created more specific goals and objectives. These goals are centered on the management of elephants in the park. Elephants were chosen based on two factors: they are the largest animals in the park. Management for them would include management for all other smaller species. And they are the only animals in the park that do not go through a regular cyclic change. The park will be managed as a whole ecosystem with the boundaries based on the rough boundaries of the elephant clans living within the park.

• To split the park into six zones of management, maintaining the natural home ranges of elephants within these zones.

• To manage elephants based on measured impacts on biodiversity. This will shift the management away from the current practice of managing elephant populations solely on absolute numbers.

• To manage elephant populations within two defined Threasholds of Potential Concern (TPC). These TPC’s provide an upper and lower limit of impacts that can be supported by the specific zone in which they live.

• To maintain the current number of elephants within the park. This would mean that they would have to decrease the population of elephants in the low impact zones by 14% each year in order to compensate for the estimated 7% growth of the elephant population in both the high and low impact zones.

• To alternate the high and low impact zones in order to produce a "natural flux" within the ecosystem. This would also encourage tree growth and species diversity in the whole park, instead of only in low impact zones and botanical reserves.

• To manage elephants in the botanical reserves at a medium density in order to protect fragile or rare vegetation types and landscapes. This would mean 1 elephant per 286 sq. km.

• To maintain elephant populations through the most humane lethal and non-lethal practices, favoring the non-lethal. This would mean that elephants would only be transported in intact family units, culling methods would be carried out in the most humane way and would not involve the culling of matriarch females.

This management plan uses an adaptive management strategy in order to achieve the greatest success. More research needs to be done in order to maximize the success of this plan.

• To continue studies of contraception and other non-lethal means of managing elephant populations.

• To continue research on atmospheric/ aquatic/ terrestrial systems as well as alien impacts. This would provide more information to the managers on ways in which the ecosystem is functioning and impacted by factors other than the species living within it.

The Kruger National Park (KNP) Director is in charge of making decisions, based upon the recommendations made by the Standing Committee for Nature Conservation. The Standing Committee bases these recommendations in collaboration with appointed research staff and senior management, who evaluate the results of biodiversity monitoring projects and the annual elephant census material.

1. Two botanical reserves

• Northern Botanical Reserve (Sandveld/Pafuri/Nwambia)

• South-western Botanical Reserve (Lowveld Sour/Malelane Mountain Bushveld)

1. Two high-density zones

• Letaba/Olifants High Elephant Impact Zone

• Southern High Elephant Impact Zone

• Shingwedzi Complex Low Elephant Impact Zone

• Central District Low Elephant Impact Zone

The KNP Elephant Management Plan has been approved and is currently in the stages of implementation. There are various new stages, polices and projects that have to go into converting the previous management plan into the new management plan. This plan will take months of preparation, and could possibly lead to the reorganization of park staff, acquisition of new funding and established infrastructure. There is currently no material made available that details the current status and procedures used in the KNP Elephant Management Plan. However there is information provided by college students who have helped in the live transportation of Kruger’s Elephants (Dept of Env. 2001)

KNP will become part of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park (GLTP). The GLTP will consist of the following; Gaza Province in Mozambique, Kruger National Park in South Africa, and Gonarezhou National Park in Zimbabwe. The GLTP is striving to re-establish the historical animal migration routes and other ecosystem functions that have been disrupted by fences and incompatible policies. It hopes to bring back a larger and more resilient ecosystem that has a better chance of long-term sustainability. As to date the Management Plans are still under development and no updated material has yet been provided (Ministry 2000).

We evaluated Kruger National Park’s Proposed Elephant Management Plan as an ecosystem management plan. In order for this plan to be considered an ecosystem management plan we felt that it must incorporate the major themes of ecosystem management. We critiqued this plan based on seven main themes of ecosystem management that we felt effective in carrying out an ecosystem management plan; these themes are hierarchical context, ecological boundaries, monitoring, adaptive management, interagency cooperation, and values.

We feel that hierarchical context is the backbone of ecosystem management. It is the idea that all elements in a system function together and that no single level of the hierarchy is more important to the maintenance of the ecosystem. The goals stated in the proposed elephant management plan address this concept by creating zones of multiple elephant impacts in order to maintain all systems in the park. All elephant impact zones have set critical thresholds both high and low so that the population of elephants will not disturb the natural functions of the ecosystems. Although these thresholds are a positive step towards incorporating hierarchical context, more needs to be considered.

The management plan focuses solely on the management of elephants. Many functions of the ecosystem are not included or even mentioned in the plan, such as aquatic functions. The other species or systems mentioned in the plan are only referenced with respect to elephants. Although elephants are a keystone species in the KNP, the management plan needs to go into depth about other species, both plant and animal, and the ways in which they are being managed. Also, the plan needs to address the processes at work in each of these management zones. Ecosystem processes were mentioned only briefly in the description of why a critical threshold must not be surpassed; the plan never discussed the affects that would occur even without reaching a critical threshold.

Ecological boundaries are an important theme that separates ecosystem management from any other land management type. Ecological boundaries incorporate the hierarchical context by allowing for the flows and fluxes of the ecosystem to stay intact. It is important to manage an ecoregion by ecological, not political boundaries. Boundaries that are not ecological may exclude important functions and processes of the system and can cause fragmentation. The proposed elephant management plan used this concept when defining the six zones in the park. They divided these zones by natural, known homeranges of elephants in the park. They also took this approach when defining the boundaries for the botanical reserves on the north and south. These borders are defined around smaller rare or threatened ecosystems of plant species. The botanical reserves were designed in order to maintain the natural flow and fluxes of that smaller ecosystem in order to maximize protection of the species at risk.

The proposed elephant management plan attempts to create a park created purely of ecological boundaries. This cannot happen because the protective fencing that surrounds the park was not built following ecological boundaries. The fence cuts many plant and animal habitats in half, especially many elephant’s homeranges. The fence would need to be expanded in order to include the entire ecosystem and each of the habitats and homeranges important to the species of the park. There is a proposal to take down the fence around KNP and create a complete ecosystem, known as the Tranfrontier Park, but this management plan does not mention this proposal.

Adaptive management increases the success of a management plan by allowing it to be constantly changing with new information. There is never a perfect management plan that is best for every aspect of the ecosystem; adaptive management allows changes to occur to help create the best plan. The proposed elephant management plan does a good job at realizing this. The plan called for using contraceptives on elephants, when they were found to be unsuccessful they were eliminated from the plan until further research was conducted. Elephant removal, contraception, and culling methods were left open and not specified in the management plan so that the best ways could be implemented. This allows for changes in technology and public opinion by not putting exact methods in this section. The plan also acknowledges that the six proposed zones may have harsher affects than was anticipated. Using adaptive management the plan calls for one high impact zone to be created at first, waiting 5 years to create the second one so that they can first understand how the system will be affected by this. By doing this they can minimize the damage if the plan does not work out as it is predicted.

The only need of adaptive management that was not met by this proposed plan was adequate future planning for large-scale changes to the park. The creation of a Transfrontier park has been proposed and would require the removal of all fences in the park. There is no mention of the plans proposed actions if this were to happen. This dramatic change to the landscape would not allow the plan to be followed through and adaptive management could be ineffective in this case because the plan only describes how to carry out these zones in the park the way it currently is. We feel that more data needs to be collected, on the effects of these six zones, in order for the management plan to be able to expand its zones if the fences of the park were to be removed.

Monitoring and data collection are the most important element in deciding the successes and/or failures of an ecosystem management plan. Data must be collected and species must be monitored in order to gain knowledge about the health of the ecosystem. The proposed elephant management plan refers to many ongoing studies that are being conducted in the park, aerial surveys of elephant numbers, and the continued testing of contraceptive techniques, culling methods, and other new technology. We feel that the plan calls for strict monitoring of the elephant and their population numbers, the plan also describes many forms of data that has been and is currently being collected, helping them to better understand the elephant populations of KNP.

We feel that the plan did not adequately describe all the monitoring and data collection methods that would be taking place. There was no specific context in the management plan about monitoring water, habitats, plant species, or other animal species besides elephant. . Although there is a lot of monitoring and data collection of elephant we feel that it focuses only on elephant numbers and not other aspects. Our greatest concern, with the data collection and monitoring of this proposed elephant management plan, is that none of the information collected so far is available to the public. We think informing the public is a crucial step in order to make a plan successful, without information and involvement there will be no public help.

We believe that the success of an ecosystem management plan depends greatly on the people supporting it. If all the stakeholders and supporters of this proposed management plan could work together than the best technologies can be used to implement it. We feel that this proposed management plan is lacking in organizing interagency cooperation. There is no cooperation with the Transfrontier park supporters, there is no mention of governmental involvement, and no mention of the local people in plan. We feel that these three groups of people are vital in order for this plan to succeed. The proposed management plan focuses mainly on two groups of people- tourists and scientists. If this plan is to be successful than the public and government must be involved, if they aren’t involved they are not going to want to support the cause and can work against the good of the park purely out of spite for not being let in. The government and the public are the original owners of this park area and their support is vital.

Values are a human attribute; they allow us to decide what is important and what is not. We thought that the plan attempted to give equal values to tourism, biodiversity and natural landscapes, which are crucial to an ecosystem management plan. We felt that it was extremely important for this plan to encompass biodiversity as a high value and the plan made this a priority. The plan recognizes humans as the most important part of this plan; it acknowledges that human activities or in-activities affect the landscape. Although the plan recognizes these factors it does not go into detail into how the landscape will be affected by them. There is no mention in the plan of tourist activities and how they will affect the multiple zones in the park. They do not mention how human activity outside the park, such as agriculture, tourism, and development, will affect the zoning of the park. We also felt that elephants were ranked too high in value and we believe that other aspects of the ecosystem weren’t regarded. We felt that although human values are extremely important they outweighed the most effective management options. Tourism decides the value of animal and plant species in the park, outweighing biodiversity needs.

We believe that there are many good proposals in this plan and that it could be successful with a few minor adjustments. In our opinion the plan does not focus enough on the future of the area in and outside the park. We feel the plan needs to incorporate more predictions of the future and it needs to allow room for greater changes in the ecosystem to occur. We also feel that the plan needs to expand its research and focus from primarily elephant population numbers to other elephant data as well as other species. Lastly, we think that this plan needs to incorporate more people to be actively involved. The greater the public and local government involvement the greater support for the needs of the plan.

Ministry of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Tri-nation agreement on development of Gaza-Kruger-Gonarezhou Transfrontier Park, 2000. http://www.environment.gov.za/NewsMedia/MedStat/2000nov10/GKG_Agreement_10112000.htm