A. DE VOSANTOON DE VOS, wildlife officer with the FAO Forestry and Forest Industries Division, presented this paper at the Conference on Canadian National Parks: Today and Tomorrow, held at Calgary, Canada, 9 to 15 October 1968.
Because of their outstanding animal displays and the often attractive scenery, the national parks of East Africa are drawing increasing numbers of tourists from all over the world and they are therefore important in providing much needed foreign exchange for the development of the three East African countries concerned. But are they adequately managed? And is their future secure? These are some of the points to be discussed in the hope that this may create a better understanding of the problems confronted in East Africa today.
At the first World Conference on National Parks held at Seattle, Washington, United States, in 1962, certain guidelines were developed which are considered acceptable as standards for national parks management the world over. The conclusion was also arrived at that management based on scientific research is not only desirable but often essential to maintain some biotic communities in accordance with the conservation plan of a national park or equivalent area. Are these guidelines acceptable to Africans generally, and suitable to African conditions?
Let us first of all consider the attitude of the average uneducated African toward national parks To the majority such parks are still European institutions, established for the enjoyment of the tourists and of no particular concern to the indigenous people other than as foreign exchange earners. There is, fortunately, a small but increasing number of Africans who enjoy visiting national parks, and also there is better understanding of the role parks play in conserving the national heritage. The prevailing attitude, however, remains that parks are to be tolerated mainly because they provide required funds.
One might well ask what the future brings for national parks in view of the rapidly increasing human populations and, consequently, accelerating pressures on the land. It seems that, if national parks are to remain untouched, it will be essential that they play an increasingly significant role in the economy of the countries concerned. The cardinal question then is: How can this be achieved with due reference to policies governing national parks management and without damage to the living resources of these parks?
Since parks are the major attraction for the tourist industry, it really is of little consequence how their recurrent costs are, met and no undue significance should be laid on whether or not the revenues of any park cover its costs of upkeep. If a park runs at a loss, it is a matter of policy how losses are going to be covered. Recurrent costs of parks can be met from general government revenues, from tax on the tourist industry, or from entry fees - or more likely from a combination of all three.
One unfortunate fact is that in East Africa today there are inadequately defined national policies governing the purposes and objectives of parks management. As long as these remain ill-defined, it will be most difficult for those charged with management and maintenance of parks to do an adequate job. Fortunately, efforts are under way to rectify this situation through the African convention for the conservation and management of wildlife.
The general objective for those managing national parks should be to maintain the ecologic scene as it was before man started drastically to interfere with his environment. Native species of wild animals and plants should be preserved in maximum variety and in reasonable abundance. A special effort should be made in East Africa to maintain a representative collection of the spectacular variety of species of animals and plants that are present in undisturbed habitats.
A basic consideration should be that the management of the environment be kept to the absolute minimum consistent with the basic goals of park management. However, neither animal numbers nor the vegetation remain static, and there are circumstances when man must actively disturb the processes going on, usually to maintain some habitats that are being destroyed by certain species of animal.
Those charged with the management of sociological aspects of national parks have many problems on their hands that cannot be readily solved. Many of these problems originate from outside the parks, which can generally be considered "ecological islands," subject to direct or indirect modification by activities and conditions in the surrounding areas. These influences may involve such factors as immigration and/or emigration of animal and plant life, changes in the fire regime, and alterations in the surface or subsurface water.
FIGURE 1. - Wildebeest in the Ngorongoro Crater, Tanzania.
Even the largest national parks in East Africa do not appear to be self-regulatory ecological units. For instance, the Serengeti National Park, covering approximately 15000 square kilometres (5800 square miles), does not really serve as such, since hundreds of thousands of animals migrate beyond its boundaries at certain times of the year.
While until recently there was relatively tattle pressure on the land surrounding the national parks, this is no longer the case everywhere and in some instances there is intensive agriculture practically right up to the boundaries of national parks. This problem is bound to get worse. The situation was elucidated by Wheater (1968) for Murchison Falls National Park, Uganda. Here agricultural settlement along the south-west boundary not only results in increased poaching, but also damage to crops by game. He suggested that, in order to prevent further agricultural encroachment along the boundaries of this park, it would be essential to prepare a land-use development plan for its surroundings, including controlled hunting areas, game reserves and ranching areas, but excluding further intensive agricultural settlement.
Because of increasing pressures on the land, wildlife is becoming increasingly confined to, or forced into, the boundaries of national parks. Herds of animals which used to migrate in and out, according to the availability of food, will tend to spend a much larger proportion of their time in a park. Migration or movements outside parks are tolerated less and less by the indigenous population. Elephant in particular, become increasingly confined to parks and reserves, resulting in increasing pressure on the available food resources. Sometimes, as in the case of the Mount Kenya and the Aberdare national parks, wildlife is prevented by game moats from leaving the boundaries of parts of these parks. Since these mountain parks are incomplete ecological units, this is bound to create problems, such as overbrowsing of part of the range.
Fire-induced grasslands and wooded grassland, which may carry large numbers of many species of plains game, are largely man-produced habitats which are so characteristic that their disappearance would constitute a very important and serious loss. The use or the control of fire can be a very powerful tool for the control or alteration of the flora. Decisions on its use are inherent in a management plan. In most parks uncontrolled fires flare up every dry season, and the management decision will be either to let them do so, or to prevent any fire from coming through. To control a fire so that it occurs at a predetermined time or set interval of years may be the ultimate solution, but this requires well-trained personnel and adequate equipment.
Another problem may be that larger predators, such as lion and cheetah, move out of the protective confines of parks on occasion and get killed off in the process. That, of course, results in reduced predator pressure with possible consequent buildups in prey populations or in disease incidence among the prey.
One point to be considered is, under what conditions it would be admissible to introduce species of animals or plants into a national park which are not present in it. There appear to be at least two circumstances under which this might be allowed:
1. when a species has been known to be present within living memory, and the habitat is still suitable for its existence;2. when a change in vegetation after the creation of a park creates a suitable habitat for a species that is present the surroundings of such a park.
When certain herbivores exceed the carrying capacity of the range, damage may result. This has been described for elephant in Murchison Falls National Park (Buechner and Dawkins, 1961) and in Tsavo National Park (Grover, 1963), and reported for hippo in Queen Elizabeth National Park (Laws, personal communication). In Tsavo, browsing by elephants on trees and shrubs has resulted in opening up scrub forests to plains-type vegetation, which has allowed the habitat to become more diversified and plains animals like zebra and oryx to proliferate. Whether or not this is desirable is a debatable issue and depends on parks policy, but Laws argues that this may be a desirable development in Tsavo National Park where the biotic communities are not sufficiently diversified to be attractive to tourists.
In some parks, like Tsavo and Nairobi national parks, artificial reservoirs have been established to diversify the habitat and to provide more reliable sources of drinking water to wildlife. In Tsavo, one of these reservoirs is used for Tilapia production. No doubt, the movement of some species of wildlife is affected by this development. The provision of additional watering points may be considered since, if inadequate water is available, the animal might move out during the drier parts of the year. However, the provision of such additional water may have a very considerable effect on animal numbers and, consequently, on the vegetation.
Much controversy has raged as to whether or not the harvesting of wildlife could, or should, have a rightful place in park management. One of the guidelines adopted by the first World Conference on National Parks states that "where animal populations get out of balance with their habitat and threaten the continued existence of a desired environment, population control becomes essential. This principle applies, for example, in situations where ungulate populations have exceeded the carrying capacity of their habitat through loss of predators, immigration from surrounding areas, or compression of normal migration patterns."
It seems that in East Africa decisions will inevitably be required upon animal species that have become excessively numerous in national parks. The controversial issue seems to be whether animals should be removed only to solve an ecological problem or to obtain additional funds by selling meat and other animal products. It is held by some that the removal of animals for an ecological purpose should have clear priority over meat use for straight profits. Biologists, however, continue to argue about whether or not removal of animals fulfils an ecological purpose. Some of them maintain that overpopulation of a species is usually a temporary phenomenon and that, given time, such populations readjust themselves to the available food supply by reduced nasality. Others are of the opinion that, once one or more species have a detrimental effect on the habitat, one can ill afford to let nature run its course and that, anyway, one might as well harvest the annual surplus if there is no danger to the survival of the species concerned. One inherent danger here is that, because it is profitable, animal harvesting might become an objective in itself and not a subsidiary management tool, but this can be regulated by policy.
FIGURE 2. - Young Grant's gazelle, Nairobi National Park, Kenya.
FIGURE 3. - Hyena in the Ngorongoro Crater.
It is perhaps dangerous to generalize too much about these issues since each park offers its own specific problem. This does not imply, however, that there should not be national guidelines dealing with the harvesting of surplus animals in national parks. In some parks, such as the Serengeti, Tsavo and Queen Elizabeth national parks, substantial numbers of ungulates could be removed annually because their intrinsic rate of production is so high. Provided that the main objectives of national parks management are not challenged, there is no reason why considerable numbers of hippo, elephant and buffalo should not be harvested on a sustained yield basis in the Queen Elizabeth National Park. The same reasoning would hold true for the utilization of elephant in Tsavo National Park, and for wildebeeste, zebras and Thomson's gazelle in the Seregeti National Park, without harm to the main objectives of national parks management.
There is, unfortunately, much evidence of mismanagement in the national parks of East Africa today. In Nairobi National Park, for example, which is the most heavily used park in East Africa, visitors are allowed to drive anywhere. This results in unsightly car tracks being obvious all over the place and, locally, in erosion. In the Ngorongoro Crater a new track is often established parallel to the old one when - the latter gets in poor shape. Considering the relatively high traffic density in the crater, this is a practice that should be avoided and the only alternative is the construction of more durable roads, which is now under way. In Lake Manyara National Park a gravel pit has been opened up for the development of a tourist road right up against the wall of the Rift valley which has been quite unnecessarily scarred to form a visible eyesore from a number of viewpoints in the park.
In some cases animal populations are permitted to do irreversible damage to the habitat. The most flagrant example of that is in the salient of Aberdare National Park where, for the sake of having plenty of animals in view at the famous Treetops, elephant and buffalo have done serious damage to the habitat because they are enclosed by a game moat. Wildlife populations are so high in the centre of Murchison Falls National Park that the range is in bad shape, and wind and sheet erosion can be readily noticed.
Another serious example is that of the fishing villages which are allowed to sprawl without adequate planning or supervision in Queen Elizabeth National Park. Considering the huge protein resource locally available such villages can hardly be avoided, but the villagers are allowed to construct haphazardly any kind of dwelling.
Perhaps a minor consideration is the provision of salt in certain obvious places along roads in Nairobi National Park, presumably to enhance game viewing. Not only are these heaps of salt eyesores, but salting seems an unnecessary management practice.
FIGURE 4. - Sunrise in Arusha National Park Tanzania.
There is an obvious need in East Africa to plan not only for better management of the national parks but also of the wildlife resource generally. Boyd (1968) has suggested a "grand plan" for wildlife administration, embracing the functions of the present national parks, game and forest departments. He argues that these departments should use a common survey approach to assess the available wildlife resource and that they should plan on a conjoint basis its development and utilization. Diverse needs should be recognized by the use of parks, or parts of them, as research areas, educational centres or recreational areas.
FIGURE 5. - Flowering Euphorbia growing in Aberdare National Park, Kenya.
Boyd states: "If some of the revenue from tourism, game cropping and foreign aid is invested in management of the habitat, the feedback to the primary resource in terms of a sustained or improving wildlife spectacle could be achieved." It seems that there could be a real problem shaping up in national parks management in East Africa today. More and more money is spent on building bigger and better lodges, swimming pools and other amenities to accommodate the tourists and to provide recreation for them, but at the same time little effort is made to manage the habitat and populations of wildlife that these people come to see, often at great expense. If this trend continues, it may end up by killing the goose that is laying the golden eggs.
Another problem is that not all species of wildlife are represented in national parks, or are represented in too sparse populations. For instance, several subspecies of hartebeeste (Hunter's and Nakuru) are not now protected in such parks in Kenya and it is presumably possible that they might be eliminated altogether in view of the fact that thousands of acres of land designated for intensive settlement lose most of their wildlife every year.
Since most national parks are not large enough to serve as self-contained units for the existence of all species of wildlife, it is essential that buffer zones be created around them in which wildlife can be given at least a certain measure of protection, and where intensive agriculture and settlement are not permitted. It stands to reason that wherever agriculture and settlement are allowed to exist up to the boundaries of wildlife areas, the wild animal population will be adversely affected. Many of the animals are sure to wander beyond the boundaries of these reserves, and thus conflict with agriculture. Buffer zones would protect farming interests and at the same time would be useful for harvesting excessive populations of wildlife that might build up in the wildlife reserves as a result of protection.
Another problem is how to introduce visitors into national parks in such a way that they have a minimum effect on the animals, the scenery and the habitat. This will involve demarcating the areas to which they are allowed access by the correct placement of roads and tracks, camp sites and lodges. Too often park headquarters are established in scenically attractive places in the centre of national parks, while they could just as well be situated somewhere along the edge where they would interfere less with natural amenities.
Also, since inadequate numbers of Africans visit the national parks, a much greater amount of money and much more attention need to be devoted by management to allow more Africans to visit the parks and to try to make them more wildlife conservation minded. Uganda started the idea of taking parties of children into the parks, paying all their expenses except food. Tanzania has built hostels for visits of organized groups of African youth. Yet much more needs to be done along these lines.
So far, unfortunately, inadequate headway has been made in planning for wildlife within the total framework of land-use planning in East Africa. Some people concerned with parks and wildlife resources have not fully come to accept that these resources should be developed and exploited in furtherance of the overall economic goals of their country. This is not surprising since the subject of land-use planning is relatively new, even in the developed parts of the world. Generally, those concerned with a master plan for economic and resource development are not sufficiently aware of the economic advantage of national parks, and for this reason there is a tendency in East Africa toward the conversion of parks and wildlife habitat into more intensive agricultural and forestry uses.
BOYD, J. M. 1968, Towards a grand plan for the management of wildlife in East Africa. Proc. Wildlife Management/Land-use Symposium, July 5-8, 1967, Nairobi. (A. de Vos & T. Jones, eds.) Government Printer, Nairobi.
BUECHNER, H. K. and H. L. DAWKINS. 1961, Vegetation change induced by elephants and fire in Murchison Falls National Park, Uganda, Ecology 42 (4): 752-66.
GOWAN, I. McT. 1968, The ecological concept of park management. Proc. Wildlife Management/Land-use Symposium, July 5-8, 1967, Nairobi. Government Printer, Nairobi.
GLOVER, J. 1963, The elephant problem at Tsavo. E. Afr. Wildl. J. (1): 30-39.
LEOPOLD, A. S. 1968, Ecologic objectives in park management. Proc. Wildlife Management/Land-use Symposium July 5-8, 1967, Nairobi. Government Printer, Nairobi.
MITCHELL. F. 1968, The economic value of game viewing as a form of land use. Proc. Wildlife Management/Land-use Symposium, July 5-8, 1967, Nairobi. Govt. Printer, Nairobi.
WHEATER, R. J. 1968, Land use proposals for the area surrounding Murchison Falls National Park. Proc. Wildlife Management/Land-use Symposium, July 5-8, 1967, Nairobi. Govt. Printer, Nairobi.
