On the Subject of Elephants & The Philosophy of Management for Maximum Biodiversity

Why Is Intervention Necessary in Wildlife Management?

The appeal of wilderness preservation—where humans are entirely excluded and nature is allowed to flourish without intervention—feels almost utopian. It suggests a pristine, untainted vision of the world. But this view is, in fact, deeply flawed, particularly within the context of African ecosystems. For over 200,000 years, humans have been the primary agents of ecological change on the African continent, both as apex predators and as significant modifiers of habitats.

The notion of designating a protected area for wildlife—simply delineating boundaries on a map—creates an artificial construct that is inherently unstable without ongoing intervention. Much like a plant placed in a pot, such an artificial ecosystem, though contained, requires constant care. The real question, then, is not whether these areas should be managed, but how we should define the parameters for their management to maintain ecological health and balance.

The Critical Role of Biodiversity

Biodiversity—defined as the variety of life forms within an ecosystem—is foundational to the functioning of that ecosystem. It ensures resilience, stability, and the provision of essential ecological services like clean air, water, and soil fertility. In the Anthropocene, we are witnessing the ongoing mass extinction of species, driven largely by human activities that disrupt habitats and alter ecological equilibria. Biodiversity loss is not just an environmental issue but a matter of human survival, as it underpins the very systems that support life on Earth.

Why manage elephant populations?

As the dominant environmental force, humans have altered ecosystems in ways that significantly impact the species within them. Elephants have the biggest impact on their environment after man and play a crucial role in shaping habitats. However like humans, their impact is not always benign. Elephants have the propensity to degrade their habitat to a point where other species can become locally (eventually globally) extinct.

Through their feeding behaviors—bulk consumption of grasses and woody plants—elephants can modify landscapes in ways that threaten the persistence of other species. The destruction of tree cover, for example, through activities like ring-barking and felling, can push ecosystems toward a state where other species may not be able to survive. This is however natural. Why are there so many elephants in what we assume to be well-managed wildlife areas?

Understanding Elephant population growth

One of the reasons elephant populations have flourished in well-managed protected areas is the absence of natural predators, the biggest of which has been man. However, this simplistic explanation fails to capture the full ecological picture.

Elephants are generalist, bulk feeders, able to benefit from almost any palatable vegetation. Other animals that have this generalist approach include impala and baboons, some of the animals that tend to thrive in our protected spaces. But why do these generalists prosper, often at the expense of other species?

It’s because these animals benefit from edges between habitats where there is variety and no clear, specialist advantage. Mankind creates edges when we modify habitats. Our behaviors, our interventions and our choices not to intervene all create boundaries, borders and edges that manufacture environments that favor species like elephants.

Moreover, in most “well-managed” protected areas we have put in an abundance of surface water in order to boost the number of large mammals. Not only does this practice create more edges, it also favors those species that need to drink frequently (like elephants, buffalo, impala and baboons) while disadvantaging specialist feeders who are less water dependent.

Elephant populations, left unchecked, grow at a compounded rate of about 5% annually, which can lead to rapid increases in their numbers. For example, starting with 100 elephants, within 15 years the population can exceed 200. This kind of exponential growth presents a significant challenge to wildlife management.

The Myth of Natural Equilibrium in Protected Areas

What happens if we now “let nature take its course?”

The concept that nature will restore balance if left to its own devices is an oversimplification, particularly in modern protected areas. These areas are no longer part of a continuous, undisturbed wilderness but are surrounded by human-modified landscapes. As a result, the ability of species within protected areas to move freely and to self-regulate populations are severely restricted, consequently the habitat degradation intensifies. This fragmentation prevents natural processes of recolonization and dispersal, leading to increasing imbalances and environmental degradation.

Allowing elephant populations to decline naturally through starvation or disease may seem like a return to a "natural" process. However, this approach fails to account for the isolation of modern protected areas.

If elephant populations crash, the species that depend on them—whether through direct ecological relationships (such as tree canopies for roosting or nesting) or more subtle connections (such as soil microbes)—may never recover. Bees are another keystone species that favor large, old trees, as the hives need to be safe from honey badgers and other raiders. The absence of these and other species can lead to a further spiral of degradation driven by the remaining elephants who still need to eat, ultimately leading to a loss of biodiversity and a collapse of ecological function. This process is also known as desertification.

Okay so we need to manage elephant numbers, but based on what?

Every ecosystem has a certain capacity to sustain plants and wildlife, which is sometimes referred to as its maximum functional biomass. This capacity, already under pressure from climate change and anthropogenic activity, is increasingly constrained.

There is a ceiling to the functional biomass in any environment. This means that as the biomass of elephants increases, it also reduces in other species. Practically speaking, other organisms are “converted” into elephant biomass as the elephant population increases.

Estimating carrying capacity is complex, as everything is intertwined. To estimate the sustainable population of elephants in a given area, it is essential to understand the relationship between elephant biomass and the broader ecological structure.

In ecosystems like the southeastern lowveld of Zimbabwe (SEL), where rainfall is low and tree growth is slow, the carrying capacity for elephants (and people) is much lower compared to more fertile, moisture-rich areas. We recognize this in our Zimbabwean land use categorization, where SEL is typically classified as Category 5b, meaning it is completely unsuitable for any agricultural enterprise and has a low ability to sustain human life. In SEL, the general guideline is that each elephant requires about three square kilometers of pristine habitat to meet its dietary needs without damaging biodiversity.

That means that as a rough guideline we should have around 300 elephants in every thousand square kilometers of wildlife estate in SEL of Zimbabwe.

What about Savé Valley Conservancy?

The Savé Valley Conservancy (SVC) provides a compelling example of the challenges of wildlife management, as it has become a victim of its own success. Along with the elephants, other iconic African mammals have increased greatly in numbers since the formation of the conservancy, including both species of rhino, African hunting dogs, buffalos, lions and leopards. In 1992, 550 elephants were reintroduced to the area, and by 2024, their numbers had swelled to over 2,550—far exceeding the estimated carrying capacity of the landscape. This population growth, possibly compounded by immigration from neighbouring areas, has placed immense strain on the ecosystem.

Savé Valley Conservancy (SVC) counts its mammalian fauna annually through a rear seat observer count from an aircraft. Isolated counts are not particularly useful but if you get a population trend over time, you can be fairly certain that the trend is important. The elephant counts have consistently trended upwards. Innovative methods such as AI-assisted photographic censuses have provided a more accurate picture of wildlife populations and the photographs provide an auditable record for future verification. These techniques reveal that traditional human counts consistently underestimate populations by as much as 30%, so 2,550 elephants seem to be a minimum figure. The elephant population in SVC is now roughly three times higher than the theoretical carrying capacity, highlighting the need for urgent management intervention.

What are the options to reduce elephant numbers?

Populations will naturally contract and birth rates will slow when the habitat becomes unsuitable for them, as their food dwindles and inevitably when starvation takes its course. Elephants, as generalists will only reach this nadir once all available sources of nourishment for them (and therefore for everyone else) are exhausted. This process is slow, painful, and ecologically damaging. Moreover, if it is a consequence of earlier management decisions, then we must take responsibility for the suffering involved. Surely as compassionate beings we should be putting starving elephants out of their misery?

We cannot “let nature take its course” within a manmade protected area.

We could “let them go” outside of the protected area, but this is a direct route to human wildlife conflict (HWC), which leads to tragedy on both sides. If that is a conscious managerial decision then it’s a strange one.

Habitat expansion, such as the creation of Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs), offers potential for long-term solutions, however the complexities of international conservation governance complicate these efforts.

In between now and tomorrow, the single biggest change that you can make to preserve the biodiversity of our planet is to become a vegan, eating no animal products. The major cause of habitat destruction is agriculture. The farming of livestock and food for livestock uses almost 80% of the continent’s farmland in Africa. Animal products contribute only about 14% of the calories to the global human diet, yet they are a key driver of the climate crisis and of habitat conversion. Imagine if just half of that farmland was once again available, to support our wildlife, our ecosystems and those vital ecosystem services (air, water, etc.) that come from having healthy, functional ecosystems?

Leaving out the question of what people think of as theirs, what they eat and whose ancestral grounds are whose, the option of increasing wildlife habitat is being explored in a manner written large by SVC. The trans-frontier conservation areas (TFCAs) that are being proposed and implemented between Zimbabwe and its neighbors include the Trans-Limpopo TFCA, which includes Savé Valley Conservancy. This TFCA also includes Gonarezhou National Park and Kruger National Park, both of whom are currently struggling with the same issues of elephant management as Savé Valley Conservancy. Some fenced and managed wildlife areas within this TFCA are reluctant to remove their fencing as they don’t want to be “over run” by elephants from other protected areas!

Can we translocate them to other areas?

Savé Valley Conservancy has undertaken two elephant translocations to other wildlife areas within Zimbabwe and has attempted to move elephants to Mozambique. The trans-border movement was halted due to international politics and involved elephants being transported to and from the border and back to Savé Valley Conservancy.

Leaving out the very important questions of who should pay for these translocations and more importantly, is this the best possible use of donor money in the conservation sphere, most wildlife areas within Zimbabwe are already near, at or over their understood carrying capacities for elephants.

Where next? Maybe we can move them further, to other countries. These are massive logistical and financial exercises and the potential gain is short term. If we do this today, what can we do with our (still increasing) elephant population tomorrow? What happens when the next protected area (PA) has to deal with an elephant population that’s exceeding their carrying capacity?

I’ve heard about elephant birth control, what about that?

Fertility control technologies are still in early stages of development and are unlikely to provide a reliable, scalable solution for large, free-ranging populations. It might work in small populations, where each female elephant can receive “the pill” on a regular basis, but it’s not ready for deployment at scale.

Even if the contraception works perfectly, how would it be implemented to ensure a natural population pyramid (with just the right recruitment of young elephants to balance natural mortality) is achieved? It’s really complicated. It also doesn’t deal with the elephants that are already here.

We could “hunt” elephants?

We can and we do, but we also understand that trophy hunting is a poor way to manage a population. It unnaturally selects against mature males (the trophies) and is too disruptive to the family herds to be used with the cows, most of whom have calves anyway. Hunting is therefore not suitable in reducing elephant populations. When a population is reduced, we need to maintain a natural population pyramid, maintain social cohesion and cause as little trauma as possible.

I hate culling, what other options exist?

None that we’re aware of. We also do not choose to cull lightly. It is a hard decision to make and an awful undertaking to be involved in. We are continually searching for alternatives that do not result in the destruction of these wonderful, sentient animals. Population reduction exercises seem to be the antithesis of conservation, something that people who love wildlife and wild areas abhor, yet understand as necessary.

Ultimately, there is no simple solution to the challenge of managing elephant populations in protected areas. We must continue to innovate and collaborate across disciplines to find sustainable ways to balance the needs of wildlife with the health of ecosystems.

In the absence of perfect solutions, conservationists are left with difficult choices. The preservation of biodiversity—our natural heritage—demands that we take responsibility for these decisions, however uncomfortable they may be. The search for new, innovative ideas must continue, as the stakes have never been higher.

Maybe we’re missing something, what ideas can you contribute?

(Brief press statement below)

MEDIA STATEMENT

9 June, 2025

Savé Valley Conservancy (SVC) is undertaking science-led action to manage unsustainable elephant numbers in a shrinking habitat, before irreversible ecological collapse sets in. Drawing a boundary around land and labelling it “protected” does not free us from responsibility; it simply creates an artificial system that needs thoughtful stewardship. In today’s Anthropocene epoch—defined by human-driven habitat loss and a sixth mass extinction—elephants rival humans as the greatest terrestrial habitat modifiers. Their capacity to fell trees and reshape ecosystems is natural at low densities, but when populations grow unchecked—doubling roughly every fifteen years—they outstrip the slow-growing hardwoods of Zimbabwe’s south-eastern lowveld and undermine the very biodiversity our protected areas exist to safeguard.

Since re-establishing 550 elephants in the early 2000s, SVC’s most recent AI-verified aerial survey confirms at least 2 550 elephants inside a 2 500 km² estate—triple the region’s estimated carrying capacity of about 300 elephants per 1 000 km². Surrounded by farms and settlements, the Conservancy cannot rely on migration or natural predation to restore balance. Options such as expanded corridors, translocations, fertility control, or limited trophy hunting all have merit but remain either logistically, financially, or biologically inadequate at the necessary scale and speed. Left unmanaged, habitat degradation will force starvation, escalate human-wildlife conflict, and drive local extinctions of pollinators, birds, and countless unseen organisms long before the elephant population self-regulates.

SVC therefore calls for an integrated national strategy grounded in rigorous data, real-time monitoring, and transparent collaboration among government, local communities, regional parks, and global partners. We seek investment in advanced survey technology, refinement of biome-specific carrying-capacity models, and—where no humane alternatives exist—carefully planned population-reduction measures that preserve social structure and genetic integrity. Declining to act is itself a choice, one that risks carving deserts from today’s forests and betraying Zimbabwe’s natural heritage. We invite all stakeholders to join us in crafting compassionate, effective solutions that secure a resilient future for elephants, people, and the diverse life that depends on healthy, balanced ecosystems.

The Savé Valley Conservancy was formed as a result of the coming together of a number of circumstances. The first was that an epic drought brought an end to cattle ranching and agricultural endeavour in the area and with it, the realisation that wildlife was the only viable future for the area. This dovetailed perfectly with the arrival of the first Black Rhino which had been moved from the Zambezi Valley where they were being poached to extinction. 

A few enormous ranches were subdivided and sold in lots. These attracted local, regional and international investors; all keen to be a part of the new conservation vision that officially became the Savé Valley Conservancy in 1991 when the constitution was signed by all parties.

All internal fences were removed from an area totalling 3,442sq km and a 350 km double perimeter fence was constructed. Approximately 4,000 animals of 14 species were reintroduced, including elephants in the largest translocation of that species ever undertaken. 

As a result of the size of the area and the enormous habitat diversity contained therein the conservation of the full range of indigenous mammals was possible and the ecological value of the area is considerably greater than that of most game ranching areas in southern Africa (most of which are fenced into small compartments). Wildlife populations increased rapidly, including those of several threatened and endangered species, and SVC developed into a conservation area of global significance. For example, SVC now contains a viable population of critically endangered black rhinos, a healthy number of endangered African wild dogs, a rapidly growing population of African lions and significant populations of other threatened species, such as southern ground hornbills, lappet faced vultures, elephants, cheetahs, and white rhinos. 

Plans to involve surrounding communities in the Conservancy were initiated early on with the formation of the Savé Valley Conservancy Community Trust. 

During the Government of Zimbabwe’s fast track land ‘reform’ programme in 2000-2001, approximately 33% of SVC was settled by subsistence farmers and 80 km of perimeter fencing was removed in the process. The government has since made the decision to retain conservancies for wildlife production, but the partial settlement of SVC remains for now, resulting in a mosaic of human habitation and wildlife habitat. This mosaic creates conditions conducive to intense human-wildlife conflict, illegal hunting and habitat destruction: essentially, a microcosm of the key conservation threats facing wildlife in Africa.