|
WORKING GROUP REPORTS:
BIOLOGY GROUP:
Participants: Alan Kemp, Andrew Deacon, Antoinette Kotze, Nick Theron, Quentin Hagens, Rob Little
Problem Statement 1: (High priority) The effects in variation of territory quality and size are not understood
Progress report since PHVA Feb 05: MGHP: Mabula Ground Hornbill Project have had 7 years of sightings collection throughout their range in South Africa including historical sightings dating back 184 years, and has produced on a GIS map by AfriGIS with analysis, now published on the Mabula Project website, and will be finished soon and considerably upgraded and hosted by Natural World. Ground- truthing is almost complete and the information is being used to prove the decline and assist in the potential up listing of the Red Data Book status. Athol Marchant has produced a distribution map of KZN. (Appendix 1) Considerable work is in progress to increase the layers and information on this map and local ground hornbill representatives will be provided with mapping cd's of their areas to update sightings for inclusion into the map. Nick Theron, MGHP, is collecting data for his Masters on foraging and nesting behavior at his field site in the Limpopo River Valley, where sponsored artificial nests have been erected. Nick’s Masters is on habitat usage (spatial/temporal), and home range of groups, relationships between population distribution patterns and availability of food and suitable nests across various land use types (cattle, agricultural, rural habitat). Genetics is also a part of Nick’s Masters. In 2004 the FitzPatrick Inst. took over the Mabula research site on the APNR, and have done continuous research on groups, nests, capture, ringing, blood samples etc. There has been 25 years of harvest of second-hatched chicks in the Kruger National Park for captive breeding, and the Mabula Project has been hand-rearing for release, producing protocols and reports on breeding, nests and groups. A book has been produced with all the knowledge of nests in KNP. Singizi Forest Products in the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu Natal have studied the groups in their forests. A team in the Eastern Cape have been collecting sightings in the various habitats there. The Mabula Project have ground truthed Limpopo Province, Mpumalanga, Gauteng, Swaziland and KZN. EWT: No results yet forthcoming to disseminate information from. Trials on a safe and workable method to track bird movements still in process. Ringing has however taken place on an ad hoc basis in areas such as KNP. Investigating the possibility of such a study in Coutada 10, Mozambique where there are also good numbers of SGH and where concession holders are keen for such a study to be initiated. Fitz/APNR: In 2004 the Percy FitzPatrick Institute took over the Mabula research site on the Associated Private Nature Reserves of Timbavati, Klaserie and Umbabat (APNR), and has done continuous research on groups, nests, capture, ringing, blood samples etc. Regular sightings from individual land owners, wardens, lodges, guests and researches are collected and put into a database and then plotted using GIS.
Solution1: Data collation and dissemination within the various projects. Action: Projects need to make all their data more available. Responsibility: Scott Ronaldson for KNP data, Nick Theron for MGHP data, Ian Little for data from Fitz about APNR, Quentin Hagens for Fitz/APNR data Timeline: Ongoing and continuous into future.
Solution 2: Data on national scale have made good progress but regional levels need further analysis as far as distribution patterns, habitat types and land use are concerned. Action: Data collected via cyber tracker in KNP, GPS transmitters at APNR and mapping. Once data are available they should be analyzed. Responsibility: Scott Ronaldson for KNP, Nick Theron for MGHP, Quentin Hagens for APNR /Fitz, Mapping and analysis can be done by all parties. Timeline: Ongoing at present and will continue into future.
This problem statement report is much the same as Ecology Problem Statement 1
Problem Statement 2: (Medium to high priority) The sex ratios and age structures of the birds are not understood, having major implications with understanding demography
Progress report since PHVA Feb 05: MGHP: MGHP have circulated ID kits to help identify groups in the field – the problem being identification of the female. Blood samples are being taken from groups where capture is possible (APNR, Limpopo Research Site, Mabula, captive community) and from overseas zoos, for DNA/genetic testing, etc. The micro satellite testing is being done by the National Zoological Gardens Research Department and at the Hillsdale College in USA. Some APNR birds have been ringed. Mabula’s released group of birds have been SAF-ringed and ID ringed, but they have not stayed on. A study has been done on the Mabula group with various transmitters (Biotrack – patagial tagging, Sirtack - re-set direction of tubes, and Holohil – tail feather and back pack transmitters). Patagial tagging was investigated and found unsuitable for SGH. The attachment of back pack transmitters is considered dangerous and does eventually kill birds. All released birds from the Mabula Programme have transmitters. EWT: A leaflet has been produced and distributed within species’ range. Also handed out at farmers’ days and other expos such as NAMPO. Fitz/APNR: ID Kits have been circulated to the various lodges and landowners to help identify groups in the field. The problems being experienced are the identification of the males and female, and the reporting of rings. Blood samples have been taken from groups that were captured and from all the chicks just before fledging for DNA/genetic testing. 14 out of the approximately 29 groups in the APNR have rings on one or more birds. Various transmitter attachment methods have been tried on the ground hornbills from back-pack transmitters to leg mounts. Four groups were captured in early 2007 and a transmitter was attached to a male in each group using back-pack harnesses. Three of the four groups still have the transmitters on and show no obvious side effects. The fourth bird got its bill hooked into the harness and could not remove it and subsequently died.
Solution 1: Assists farmers, landowners and general public with identification. Action: Work is ongoing with ID kits sent out on regular basis. Group agreed to continue as per status quo. Responsibility: EWT, MGHP, Fitz /APNR Timeline: Ongoing and continuous into future.
Solution 2: Before research can continue safe attachments for transmitters have to be devised. Action: MGHP have asked a Vodacom lateral thinking team to address this specifically. They are visiting the project with ideas on 16th May. Three projects, found at the Re-introduction Conference in Chicago by Ann, and are sending info on their harness attachment. Responsibility: MGHP, Fitz/APNR Timeline: In progress at the moment and ongoing into future
Solution 3: Research needs to be done to discover what happens to females when they leave their groups. Action: By ringing and tracking this can be achieved. Responsibility: MGHP, Fitz/APNR Timeline: Already in progress and ongoing
Solution 4: Identification of groups and sexing of groups need to be achieved. Action: Identification of juveniles with a GPS co-ordinate might be the easiest way of finding groups with a breeding pair. Responsibility: MGHP, Fitz/APNR Timeline: Already in place and ongoing.
Problem Statement 3: (Medium priority) Cooperative breeding, long life spans and slow (and late) reproduction, results in low population turnover and this renders the species particularly vulnerable to threats.
Progress report since PHVA Feb 05: MGHP: Mabula Ground Hornbill Project commented on further investigation of the impact of the following and on productivity and recruitment: Solution 1 : Group size – Further accurate data are required. Group composition and dynamics – further research required Skills acquisition (feeding, breeding, defense) – Observational data collection by observing and monitoring Mabula individuals over a 9 year period, and analysis is ongoing by MGHP and available. (Knight study available – 1980 KNP). Impact of extra pair copulations, if any – MGHP has no knowledge of extra pairs. Pair Bonding – SGH appear to mate for life, but pair changing and bonding has been necessary in the captive programme. Further research ongoing but females are not known to breed until10 years of age at least. Dominance effects (allofeeding, hormones and with-holding food) – Ongoing observational data collection on the free-roaming and self-sustaining (in periods when there are no babies) Mabula group (MGHP) available and continuing. The alpha male is entirely dominant over the group. Territoriality (calls and displays) – Achieved by Alan Kemp and is available. Investigate further the impact of the following and on productivity and recruitment. Solution 2 : Natural nest repair and modification – this has been done in KNP in the past but no longer allowed. Nest boxes – 31 nests have been erected in APNR (MGHP) – with considerable success, 30 have been erected in Limpopo River Valley (MGHP) – without success in the first season, and several private individuals have placed drums on their property, with considerable success. Further research on areas where nests will be used are required and ongoing. Supplementary feeding – is ongoing at Mabula with the free-roaming group when they have an unnatural number of fledglings. Data are available on foraging/supplementary feeding. It was found at Loskop by Delecia Gunn that supplementary feeding did not encourage the alpha pair to feed the second chick, but after fledging the oldest male juvenile fed the second chick. (see captive programme.) In APNR supplementary feeding was done to encourage rearing second chicks – unsuccessful. Second chick/egg removal – a protocol was written by MGHP some years ago for KNP. Protocol available. Double clutching – this has been done for 4 years at Umgeni and Loskop and is being addressed at the captive breeding table. Cross fostering – covered in captive breeding programme. Being done at Cricket St. Thomas and at Loskop. Group supplementation – this is done yearly by MGHP and all male juveniles are immediately accepted, and females generally chased off and attacked. Re-introduction of individuals/groups – 22 by MGHP. The alpha male from a MGHP release flew back to his original territory after 3 months followed by the female. Successful re-introduction of a MGHP male was achieved with a wild female. (records of releases by MGHP available) Group splitting/manipulation – this is tested continuously by MGHP, with success but with distress from alpha male for a few days. APNR also have data on group splitting. EWT: Limited information available at this stage (Solution 4)
Solution 1: Continue with the work already being done in the APNR and Limpopo River Valley. Action: Continue as per status quo Responsibility: MGHP, Fitz/APNR Timeline: Ongoing
Solution 2: Provide artificial nests to increase breeding. Action: Put up artificial nests where groups either have no nest or natural nests have been destroyed. Nests have already been put up and 30 more nests will be put up where needed. Responsibility: MGHP, EWT, APNR; Quentin Hagens Timeline: 30 more nests will be up by end Aug 08.
Problem Statement 4: (High priority) Not enough is known about SGH dispersal behavior and the implications for local persistence of groups.
Progress report since PHVA Feb 05: MGHP: MGHP are following groups. Alan Kemp has provided data in KNP. Standardized monitoring data sheets have been circulated. This is a huge long-term and important project requiring specialist researchers and finance. Stakeholders in the 9 other African countries are collecting sighting data, but finance is needed to expand this. It is suspected that there has been an increase in group size in the Limpopo River Valley in the last few years (that may split soon into new groups). Maybe due to alteration in farming practice and an awareness campaign there? EWT: Good communication established with representatives from Zimbabwe (BLZ-Matabeleland Branch), Botswana (Pete Hancock – BLB), Namibia (Anne Scott) and Mozambique (Coutada 10, Errol Pietersen) (Solution 4) Fitz/APNR: Percy FitzPatrick Institute has been working on trapping and marking in the APNR with 14 out of the approximately 29 groups in the APNR now having rings on one or more birds. The main problem has been finding a suitable ring that the birds cannot remove so that individual birds can be identified in the field. All the APNR chicks are ringed with a SAFRING ring and three colour rings.
Solution 1: Genetic testing will assist to answer questions concerning scope, dispersal and distribution. Action: Existing samples need to be made available and more samples need to be collected. All Samples must be sent to Antoinette Kotze for testing. Responsibility: All institutions with captive birds, Fitz/APNR: Ian Little to send existing samples, Fitz/APNR: Quentin Hagens to send future samples, KNP:Scott Ronaldson will find samples already taken by EWT, MGHP, Antoinette Kotze; NZG Timeline: Started and ongoing.
Action: Wild birds will be caught and blood samples taken. APNR will assist by sharing models and traps. Responsibility: Quentin Hagens; APNR, Nick Theron; MGHP Timeline: Capture in APNR in progress and starting in Limpopo June 08.
Rob Little suggested considering collecting blood samples from 10 individuals from 5 sites.
Problem Statement 5: (High priority) Do not know whether the observed gaps in the distribution of the species lead to genetic isolations of sub-populations (Habitat fragmentation, patterns of gene flow etc.)
Progress report since PHVA Feb 05: MGHP: A genetic study has been initiated by the National Zoological Gardens in Pretoria lead by Prof. Antoinette Kotze. The MGHP initiated the collection of genetic samples throughout the world and within the captive birds in Zoos and Private Collections, which may be found to include birds from most countries. Micro satellite testing of samples is being done at the National Zoo, the University of the Free State and by Prof. Dan York at Hillsdale College in USA. Primers were provided by Wayne Delport. Samples are kept in Paul Bartels’ Bio-bank. A further testing center for samples collected in Europe is being organized, as it is difficult to bring blood samples in from several European countries (avian flu). Results of this are not yet available. EWT: Participate in bi-annual meetings arranged by MGHP where all role-players are represented (Solution 2)
The group felt that this would be solved by the genetic testing (Problem Statement 4, solutions and actions)
Problem Statement 6: (High priority) The fact that SGHs are cooperative breeders complicates ex-situ conservation strategies (captive rearing, reintroductions, skills acquisition through learning, etc.) the effectiveness of these ex-situ techniques as potential conservation tools may be limiting.
Progress report since PHVA Feb 05: MGHP: A comprehensive protocol on captive breeding, hand-rearing and husbandry was produced in 2007, and is available on the Mabula website. Bi-annual meetings of the Ground Hornbill Action Group for all stakeholders have been held regularly for 8 years to disseminate progress in all fields and acquire help with problems. This is a well attended forum and of considerable use. This Review has been organized through this forum. Because of the genetic sampling programme lines of good communication with all the zoos in the world that have ground hornbills have been forged. A Global Single Species Studbook has been initiated by Tracy Rhese at the National Zoo, which now holds all captive birds and continues after release into the wild.
Solution 1: A lot more work is required and may depend on future research results collected from natural populations. Action: Continue with research already started in APNR and Limpopo. Responsibility: MGHP; Nick Theron, APNR/Fitz; Quentin Hagens Timeline: Already ongoing and continuing into future (viewed as a very long term project)
Current work (MGHP) is experimental and long term due to species social structure etc.
Solution 2: Consider translocation of whole groups / wild males to areas of historical distribution following IUCN guidelines and past experience on MGHP. Action: To be discussed between KNP, APNR and MGHP Responsibility: MGHP, KNP Timeline: Process can only be started once genetic testing is complete.
Problem Statement 7: (High priority) (This was handed to the biology group from the ecology group at PHVA)
Lack of standardization of criteria and methodology for monitoring of ground hornbills. Develop a national protocol for monitoring SGH encompassing scientific, ethical and social aspects.
Progress report since PHVA Feb 05: MGHP: a) The Mabula Project developed a monitoring protocol and has had discussions with the Fitz. on this. But this could be developed further. b)This is being discussed at the Captive Breeding table The Mabula Project has published protocols for harvesting, rearing, husbandry and captive breeding, which are available on the Mabula website. Reports and data on re-introduction are available but the Mabula Project is not in a position to produce a protocol as all releases are not identical and although some have been successful for some considerable time, most have now ended. Considerable important data have been collected, analyzed and is learned from. (Data are available at this meeting). At the present time the MGHP does not consider wild release without a wild male adult, except into the free-roaming group on Mabula. The harvest of second-hatched chicks for hand-rearing continues along with the captive chicks from the Captive Breeding Programme. It is considered important to continue to rear chicks for wild release as it is 10 years before they are sexually mature, or have bonded and are knowledgeable about the group’s complicated social structure, foraging and predator awareness. It is also considered important to rear chicks for the Captive Breeding Programme.
Solution 1: Standardize monitoring Actions: Compile a standard monitoring methodology for SHG and distribute to relevant organizations Responsibility: Ian Little, Fitz Timeline End May 08
Problem Statement 8: (High priority) (This was handed to the biology group from the ecology group at PHVA)
More use of technology e.g. satellite tracking and any other applicable technology are needed
Progress report since PHVA Feb 05: MGHP: Satellite tracking and the funds to use this are available. (NZG. Fitz) Until safe attachments to back-pack harness transmitters are found this technology will not be used by the MGHP or the FitzPatrick in the APNR. Considerable efforts have been made by MGHP with the manufacturers of the transmitters (Biotrack, Sirtrack and Holohil) to sort out this problem. Patagial transmitters have been made and tested on SGH but their wing shape makes them unsuitable. At present Vodacom have a research team looking at the problem. Fitz/APNR: APNR Ground Hornbill Project has three Satellite transmitters but these will not be deployed till a safe attachment for back-pack harness transmitters are found
Solution 1: Perfection of safe harnesses and or attachments needs to be achieved. Action: MGHP has asked a Vodacom lateral thinking team to address this specifically. They are visiting the project with ideas on 16th May. Three projects, found at the Re-introduction Conference in Chicago by Ann, are sending info on their harness attachments. Responsibility: MGHP, Fitz/APNR Timeline: In progress at the moment and ongoing into future
This Action is the same as in Problem Statement 2, Solution 2
ECOLOGY GROUP:
Participants: Athol Marchant, Eugene Marais, Ian Little, Kevin Ravno, Ray Jansen, Scott Ronaldson
Problem Statement 1: (High priority) Lack of knowledge about habitat and ecological requirements of the Southern Ground Hornbill
(This problem statement report is much the same as for Problem Statement 1 in the Biology Group)
Progress report since PHVA Feb 05: MGHP: REPORT THE SAME AS FOR PROBLEM STATEMENT 1 IN BIOLOGY GROUP. 84 Rain meters were made for the GH Action Group by Eleanor Calitz at the National Zoo. These were tested by Alan Kemp and at the Mabula Project and have now been distributed to Eroll Pietersen and Scott Ronaldson for KNP. Fitz/APNR: REPORT THE SAME AS FOR PROBLEM STATEMENT 1 IN BIOLOGY GROUP.
Solution 1: Work that is already in place and being done should continue with priority on Nick Therons Masters in the Limpopo and data from the APNR. Action: Continue with current research work. Fitz needs to do an analysis of the APNR data. Responsibility: Nick Theron; research MGHP, Quentin Hagens; research APNR, Ian Little, past research data from APNR Timeline: Research in place and ongoing.
Solution 2: Following the GM Knight study, further work must be done in KZN. Action: Start a research project in KZN to discover the reasons for disappearance of birds in Mkuze and Itala. Responsibility: Ian Little and Athol Marchant to co-ordinate with Rob Slotto Timeline: Dependant on availability of funding
Problem Statement 2: (High priority) Changes in land-use and poor management resulting in the loss of preferred habitat
Progress report since PHVA Feb 05: MGHP: A Mission Statement was written by Alan Kemp for the Mabula Project in 2005, the objective of which was to stop the decline by 2015. EWT: Very little progress.
Solution 1: Establishment and registration of a Ground Hornbill Management Plan in context of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, in order to challenge and oppose changes in land use. Action: Needs to be a joint venture between KNP and EWT Responsibility: Scott Ronaldson; EWT, Andrew Deacon; KNP Timeline: Framework must be set up by Scott Ronaldson by end May 08
Removal of alien vegetation was agreed to be an unrealistic solution (PHVA Feb 05) and was thus removed from the working groups agenda.
NOTES: It is felt that there has been a reversal of habitat with many previous farmers now entering the eco-tourism trade.
Problem Statement 3: Lack of standardization of criteria and methodology for monitoring of ground hornbills.
THIS PROBLEM STATEMENT WAS MOVED TO THE BIOLOGY GROUP. (See Biology, Problem Statement 7)
Problem Statement 4: Lack of communication and coordination between stakeholders
THIS PROBLEM STATEMENT WAS MOVED TO THE EDUCATION GROUP. (See Education and Awareness, Problem Statement 5)
Problem Statement 5: (High priority) Reduction of large trees and/or destruction of other potential (cliffs and banks) nest sites results in a decrease of available nesting and roosting sites.
Progress report since PHVA Feb 05: MGHP: The MGHP have done reports for KNP on all nesting trees within the Harvest Programme, and have found that fire and old age are the main cause for reduction in nest sites. All known nests are plotted on the Mabula GIS Map – not for public use. Mabula Project erected 30 artificial nests in the APNR before handing the area over to the Fitz. Mabula Project has erected 28 sponsored artificial nests in our research site in the Limpopo River Valley, and have another 30 sponsored nests to erect. Areas are being researched in order to establish where these are most needed. It takes time to monitor the breeding of the longest lived (50/60 years (Kemp)), and slowest breeding (average of a group raising a chick to fledging being one chick every nine years – Kemp) hornbill. It seems that if they want to breed, any type of artificial nest will do. (Design for artificial nests available on the Mabula Website). EWT: Research seems to indicate (Henley et al, 2008) that the impact of elephants on nesting sites is minimal and, in fact, elephant foraging behavior can be beneficial with regard to the formation of suitable nesting cavities in large trees (Solution1, a Action 2 and action3) Done in association with PMC, Phalaborwa where a pair has successfully bred in a nest box for 2 seasons. Certain adjustments to the construction of boxes have been recommended and implemented. (Solution 2, action 2) Fitz/APNR: The APNR/Fitzpatrick Inst. did a survey on elephant damage to nesting trees for KNP. A study was also done on the impact of the elephants on the ground hornbill nesting sites within the APNR with a poster having been presented at the KNP network meeting. Mabula Project erected 30 artificial nests in the APNR before handing the area over to the Fitz.
NOTES: Groups and populations can be increased by putting up more nests: very relevant
Solution 1: KNP nest sites to be monitored Action: Incorporate into work done in KNP. Monitor and record loss of nests as well as possible new nests. Establish where nest repair might be a viable option. Responsibility: Scott Ronaldson, EWT Timeline: Ongoing
Solution 2: Put up artificial nests where groups need them. Action: Put up artificial nests where groups either have no nests or naturals nest have been destroyed. Nests have already been put up and more will be erected where needed. Responsibility: MGHP, EWT, APNR/Fitz; Quentin Hagens Timeline: Artificial nests will be up by the end of Aug 08.
This action is the same as Problem Statement 3, solution 2 of the Biology Group.
Problem Statement 6: Densification of the woody component of ground hornbills preferred habitat as well as afforestation of grassland.
Progress report since PHVA Feb 05: MGHP: The sightings data on the new Natural World Ground Hornbill website constructed by the Mabula Project and AfriGIS may help identify used and unused habitats outside of the protected areas. This is programmed to be studied by MGHP during the next two years. EWT: Except for a broader awareness drive around habitat management within EWT, no specific progress with regard to SGH habitat has been made (Solution 3). Fitz/APNR: The sightings data collected by APNR Project will be used to look at the distribution of and habitat use of the ground hornbills on bush cleared areas. Low population numbers and low densities within their limited distribution over a vast area results in difficulties in obtaining data. The APNR project has a good idea of what the numbers and density of the ground hornbills within the APNR are, but little is known about the density in the surrounding areas.
The group decided that this was dealt with in Problem Statement 2.
Problem Statement 7: (High priority) Changes in habitat could have resulted in increased territory sizes and more competition between and within groups for available habitat.
Progress report since PHVA Feb 05: MGHP: The Mabula Project has observed habitat changes around Mabula Game Reserve where the cattle farms have sold up to become eco-tourism locations. Fences have been dropped and large privately owned conservation areas have been made available to ground hornbill re-introduction. This is very long term and in an area of SGH extinction. Evaluation of habitat will be made easier with the new MGHP/AfriGIS/Natural World website. MGHP have a very good liaison, in our research area from Musina North and along the Limpopo River, with the farmers but we have a policy of not telling farmers how to run their farms, but do discuss ‘their’ ground hornbills with them. (This is much the same as being discussed by the Biology group in their Problem Statement 1) EWT: Implemented a system whereby the public could report sightings via SMS, e-mail or phone. Also promoted the use of Natural World site for logging of sightings (Solution 1) Started with the training of Field Rangers in KNP to collect better quality data on birds in this area in 2008. (Solution 2)
Solution 1: Combine land cover data into current GIS maps Action: Vegetation data and the CSIR (Conrad Wessels) land cover data will be added into the Natural World Ground Hornbill Map. Responsibility: Kevin Ravno; Natural World Timeline: End June 08
Problem Statement 8: (Medium priority) Low population numbers and low densities within their limited distribution over a vast area result in difficulties in obtaining data.
Progress report since PHVA Feb 05: MGHP: The Mabula Project sightings data collection is now on the Natural World website, and can be used for identifying areas of Southern ground hornbill densities. Interest and awareness of the plight of SGH has been addressed by the Mabula Project throughout their habitat and will continue. Sightings from the general public arrive at the Mabula office continuously. It is proposed that mapping CDs will soon be available to representatives of the Mabula Project that can be worked on in the field on a laptop.
Solution 1: Obtain more data. Action: Train rangers In KNP to get better data. Responsibility: Scott Ronaldson, EWT Timeline: Already in process and ongoing
Action: Obtain data from birds using GPS trackers and satellite transmitters Responsibility: Quentin Hagens, APNR Timeline: This cannot be achieved until appropriate attachments are found
See Biology Group Problem Statement 8.
Solution 2: Have a central map with all information, data and sightings. Action: Natural World has been set up and will be updated continuously. Responsibility: Kevin Ravno Timeline: Already in process and continuing.
Problem Statement 9: People’s pet theories can cloud or derail valid conservation
The Group felt that this Problem Statement was not applicable and was disregarded with consensus from the whole meeting.
Problem Statement 10: Climatic changes that result in changes in habitat composition
The Group decided that this is a problem beyond the scope of the people currently involved with consensus of the whole meeting. This problem statement was disregarded.
Problem Statement 11: Lack of awareness of the disappearance of the savanna biome
Progress report since PHVA Feb 05: EWT: Concerns reflected in media articles and interviews conducted on radio and television (50/50, Groen)
The Group felt that this was covered by problem Statement 6.
Commented; It is the grassland that is disappearing not the savanna biome.
EDUCATION, AWARENESS AND LEGISLATION GROUP: (At this review the Education, awareness and legislation group was combined with the Threats group.)
Participants: Ann Turner, Brenda Daly, Janet Snow, Tim de Jongh
Problem Statement 1: (Low priority) There is a general lack of awareness of the threats facing ground hornbills in the general public, but specifically in key stakeholder communities where ground hornbills historically occurred and in areas in which they are now in decline
Progress report since PHVA Feb 05: MGHP: The Mabula Project has distributed 12.000 posters(in English and Afrikaans – it was impossible to verify translations of the written word in the other languages) and 18.000 pamphlets (these are available at this meeting for distribution) over the past 7 years. Weekly talks are given through the winter by the MGHP, presentations and talks are given overseas, to local SGH habitat and farming communities, and at conferences and in the media, as well as articles written for major magazines worldwide. The Mabula Project has a mobile display for these talks. Also two SGH have been made available for taxidermy. Map of distribution in South Africa on Mabula website (www.mabulagroundhornbillconservationproject.org.za) Could be printed for distribution if thought necessary. It is not possible for the Mabula Project to invite groups to any of their nesting/roosting/foraging sites as they would either interfere with release programmes or are on private land. Sadly the Mabula Project has not been able to make use of theatrical groups. Alan Kemp made a video of his talk, which has been distributed. EWT: Pamphlets and posters produced and distributed within the species’ range via EWT fieldworkers, provincial conservation staff, etc. (Solution 1, action 2) Several articles in a variety of printed media (magazines and newspapers) and production of at least 2 programmes for television (50/50, Groen) (Solution 2) Exhibition materials, produced and used at a range of exhibitions, including NAMPO since 2006 – present. (Solution 4) Fitz/APNR: In the APNR various talks have been given at annul general meetings and to various lodges on request. Talks have also been given at the Bush School in Timbavati and the Southern Cross school has visited the project on a number of occasions.
Solution 1: Education should be linked to the National Curriculum (NC) and information distributed to facilitating teachers. The community education officers and the Biodiversity environmental programme should be included. All education should be awareness based.
Janet Snow (EWT) felt that these problem statements did not reflect the problems faced in education and awareness. She will compile a proposal of how to take education forward and how much funding will be needed for this. This will be presented at the next action group meeting, Oct 08.
Problem Statement 2: (Low priority) Environmental education and community support is rarely focused: relevant or proactive and should include community ‘buy in’. This is due to a lack of understanding and/or respect for local cultural and traditional beliefs and values, furthermore, it is not always based on current information regarding the threats facing ground hornbills.
Progress report since PHVA Feb 05: MGHP: Talks have been given to local schools and eco-schools by the Mabula Project. EWT: Done to limited effect. In the process of providing information to CLG for discussion in the BEEP programme. Also attempting to establish a site based awareness programme at Lusikisiki in the Eastern Cape, but awaiting funding. (Solution 3)
Same solution as Problem Statement 1.
Problem Statement 3: (High priority) There is conflicting legislation, lack of enforcement and ignorance on the part of nation/provincial and local authorities, or legislation pertaining to ground hornbill and related conservation requirements – all of which has resulted in a lack of public knowledge and involvement
Progress report since PHVA Feb 05: MGHP: Unfortunately the ‘Vulnerable’ status of SGH in South Africa has been allowed to slip to unlisted, although inadvertently useful for importing blood samples!, but is still ‘Vulnerable’ with IUCN. The Mabula Project has contacted the IUCN regarding proving the necessary criteria to up list SGH in the Red Data Book, and have almost sufficient evidence of decline to make a suitable application. EWT: SGH has been included in the new TOPS regulations and listed as “Protected species” (Solution 1) Distributed to parties mentioned. (Solution 5)
Solution 1: Get the status of Southern Ground Hornbills up listed in IUCN Red Data Book as this overrides Provincial legislation. Action: Apply and support application for up listing Responsibility: MGHP Timeline: Already in progress
Solution 2: Address the possible trade in Southern Ground Hornbills Action: Contact Traffic and ask for assistance and information on any trade they come across either in whole or parts of SHG. Responsibility: Andre Botha; EWT Timeline: End of June 08
Solution 3: Standardize permit / control system. Action: KZN have new permit system. Will be made available for review at the next Action Group Meeting. Responsibility: Athol Marchant; KZN Wildlife Timeline: As soon as it is published.
The group noted that TOPS and provincial permit systems are already in place as far as SGH are concerned.
Problem Statement 4: There is no clear measure to monitor the effectiveness of the education and awareness interventions taken to date to conserve ground hornbills.
The group found that this Problem statement was not relevant as education is immeasurable. The group suggested that Project-based education processes could be fed back to the SGH for future GH resource development and for motivation for future educational projects. (See Problem statement 1 and 2)
Problem Statement 5: Lack of communication and coordination between stakeholders
This was handed to the Education, Awareness and legislation group from the Ecology group (See Ecology group, Problem Statement 4)
The group, with consensus of the whole meeting, decided that this is no longer a relevant problem.
THREATS GROUP: (At this review the Education, awareness and legislation group was combined with the Threats group.)
Participants: Ann Turner, Brenda Daly, Janet Snow, Tim de Jongh
Problem Statement 1: (Low priority) The lack of knowledge of the threats related to mortalities across the different age groups
Progress report since PHVA Feb 05: MGHP: The Mabula Project has reported known mortalities from electrocution. It is very seldom that carcasses are found in the wild. A mortality database has been set up by MGHP, with knowledge of very few incidents, and will be mapped and analyzed. EWT: Database established, but hardly any information forthcoming during review period.
Solution 1: If data comes into the Mortality database, it must be reported. Action: Keep database updated and fill in on Natural World Map (as separate layer). Also report to the WCPG. Responsibility: MGHP, EWT, Kevin Ravno; Natural World Timeline: Ongoing and continuous
Problem Statement 2: (Low priority) Primary and secondary poisoning may contribute to the observed reduction in ground hornbill
Progress report since PHVA Feb 05: EWT: In place and continuous under the new WCPG of EWT. (Solution 1& 2)
Solution 1: Report poisoning incidents. Action: Known poisoning incidents must be reported to the WCPG for their assistance. Information on preferred pesticides / poisons to be circulated to farmers. Responsibility: MGHP: Ann Turner, EWT; Andre Botha Timeline: Ongoing
Solution 2: Investigate frogs and locust poisoning in KZN as possible cause of decline in SGH groups. Action: MGHP will approach amphibian group and WCPG for help. Responsibility: MGHP, EWT Timeline: To Start June 08 and ongoing.
This action links with the Ecology group, Problem statement 1, solution 2.
Problem Statement 3: (Low priority) Due to their natural curiosity, territorial aggression and human encroachment into their territories and their tendency to break windows they are being shot and persecuted.
Progress report since PHVA Feb 05: MGHP: The Mabula Project has produced various ways of preventing SGH from breaking windows. (Shutters/roller blinds on the chosen windows when the house is left. Polycarbonate plastic windows – manufacturer information available on website. This information is available on the Mabula Project website. The public do contact us asking for help so it seems the information is out there. Our website is on our posters (12 000 have been distributed). The APNR have perfected a means of catching groups. The Mabula Project has been asked once to move a group in a peanut farm, but they changed their minds and developed a way of preventing the birds from destroying the new planting. EWT: Help line in place. (Solution 1) Working with Problem Bird Forum and promoting the fitting of non-reflective strips on windows in problem areas to prevent breakages. (Solution2) Fitz/APNR: The APNR Project has discussed various ways of preventing SGH from breaking windows with the landowners who have trouble with ground hornbills breaking windows.
Solution 1: Mapping for window breaking can go onto the website. Action: A layer for groups breaking windows can be added to the Natural World map to establish if there is a serious problem in a specific area. Responsibility: Kevin Ravno; Natural World map, MGHP: Providing info to Kevin. Timeline: To start June 08 and ongoing into future.
Solution 2: Spread the word and disseminate information Action: |