Human–Elephant Conflict: Lessons Not Learnt (Sri Lanka)
Rohan Wijesinha, Groundviews
May 4, 2021
See link
https://groundviews.org/2021/05/04/human-elephant-conflict-lessons-not-learnt/
for photo & map.
“Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” George
Santayana
In 1949, a year after Sri Lanka gained independence, a Committee on the
Preservation of Wildlife (Sessional paper XIX – 1949) recommended that when
development takes place, elephants living in the proposed areas be driven
into national reserves and sanctuaries and that temporary corridors be set
between these protected areas for the purpose of these drives. Their
well-meaning recommendations were based on the knowledge that they had at
the time, primarily anecdotal evidence, with little or no comprehensive
research available on elephant distribution, ranging patterns and
behaviour. At that time, the human population of the country was less than
eight million and the supposed wild elephant population was about 1,500. We
now know that this latter figure was far from accurate and that that the
true figure probably exceeded 10,000.
A census conducted by the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC) in 2011
concluded that Sri Lanka had about 6,000 wild elephants. Comprehensive
research conducted over the past quarter of a century by the Centre for
Conservation Research (CCR) and others has shown that these elephants live
on 60 per cent of the land mass of Sri Lanka, over 40 per cent on which
they co-exist with humans. This research also shows that elephants do not
adhere to arbitrary administrative boundaries drawn on a map but range
between areas of seasonal food and water; a behaviour of many centuries, if
not thousands, of years of practice and which the local human communities
understood and adapted to.
Most importantly, what we now know is that the DWC Protected Areas (PAs)
are at or near their carrying capacity of elephants and if more wild
elephants are driven in and enclosed within them, they will soon starve to
death as they deplete the area of the large amounts of fodder they each
need to survive for a day. In addition, research data shows that when the
carrying capacity is exceeded, even the elephants that are resident in the
PA are deprived of the fodder they need and starve. In any case, denied
access to other populations of elephants they would be forced to
inter-breed, thereby facing inevitable extinction.
Beating the Same Drum
The DWC was also established in 1949. Officers were once promoted to
positions of responsibility based on their experience and longevity of
service within the institution. Today, and quite rightly, experience alone
is insufficient and those with ambition to reach the top must also have
suitable academic qualification; science to complement familiarity.
As such, it is astonishing that the DWC continues to beat this same drum of
pushing elephants into restricted areas and then constructing electric
fences around them, mostly on political demand, while ignoring the lessons
of history, and of science. The DWC’s own National Policy for the
Management of the Wild Elephant in Sri Lanka (2006) states, “It is
imperative that lands other than PAs under the DWC, that could support
elephants be integrated into elephant conservation and management plans.”
Despite this, the DWC continues to have plans for driving elephants into
DWC PAs. For the past 72 years this policy has consistently failed. There
has been no learning.
Putting Policy into Practice
In 2017, the DWC updated its 2006 policy with the assistance of a multitude
of stakeholders – researchers, scientists, former DWC Field Officers,
conservation groups and others. One of the first actions was to take out
the clause on large scale elephant drives, mostly based on the bitter
experience of the last drive from the West Bank of the Walawe into the
Lunugamvehera National Park when the bulk of elephants driven in were
females, juveniles and calves who do not cause Human–Elephant Conflict
(HEC). The majority of males, who do, were left outside. According to a
survey undertaken by CCR, 71 per cent of the people in the development area
felt that HEC was the same or worse after the elephant drive. Many of the
herds who were driven into the national park and fenced in there died of
starvation. Therefore this elephant drive, which cost the public Rs. 62
million, did nothing to solve HEC in the area and was significantly harmful
to elephants. So what was achieved?
Apart from the clause on elephant drives, much of the rest of the policy
was based on scientific observation and had it been implemented, today’s
carnage could have been avoided. Included was the establishment of Managed
Elephant Reserves (MERs) that has now been promised for the Hambantota
District, ironically, due to the determined lobbying of the local farmer
communities rather than the DWC; an action that still continues as despite
the Cabinet passing the creation of this reserve, its implementation
continues to be thwarted by politicians, self-interest and the apathy of
the Government institutions involved. This is the case with the 2006 policy
too. Despite being passed by Cabinet, it was never implemented in full,
with the DWC just picking and choosing aspects of it that would not cause
too much resistance, especially from their political masters.
An Action Plan for Progress
In 2020 President Gotabaya Rajapaksa appointed a committee to propose a
National Action Plan for Human-Elephant Conflict Mitigation. Sri Lanka has
the unenviable status of being the country with the highest rate of HEC in
the world. This committee not only comprised of representatives of the DWC
but also all of the leading stakeholders, inclusive of District Secretaries
in whose areas HEC is taking place. The committee was chaired by Dr.
Prithiviraj Fernando who is, perhaps, the most experienced researcher on
HEC mitigation and elephant conservation among the 13 Asian Elephant Range
States. His expertise on elephant conservation and HEC mitigation is sought
throughout the region.
The report of the committee was handed over to the President on December
17, 2020. It is understood that the action plan is based on the revised
national policy as passed by Cabinet and is grounded in science. We cannot
be certain of this as the plan has not been made public and sits on some
secretarial shelf while humans and elephants continue to die and the DWC
continues doing what it has been doing for the last 70 years, with no
success.
The Stark Reality
In 2019, Sri Lanka reached a sad place – the highest incidence of HEC ever
recorded of 409 elephants and 121 human deaths. Due to restriction in human
movement caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, there was a drop in number in
2020 but so far this year, 117 elephants have been killed in 119 days, many
in the most horrible of ways – electrocution when farmers attach a
connection from the main electricity grid to their fences; by the use of
hakka patas, when explosives are hidden in food and explode when bitten
into, blowing away the mouth parts and jaws of the elephants who die
lingering deaths from blood loss and starvation; and from gunshots whose
festering wounds take days or weeks to bring about the release of death.
Official figures show that 2,806 elephants were killed between 2010 and
2020, which is almost 50 per cent of the total population counted in 2011.
At this rate of attrition, it is very apparent that the wild elephant in
Sri Lanka is on the brink of complete extermination.
Uncertainty as to the real number of elephants remaining in the wild makes
it difficult to ascertain whether the remaining numbers are sustainable or
whether they have reached a figure below that which is reversible for
future survival. Their doom may already be determined. As such, it is
difficult to comprehend when some politicians state that Sri Lanka has too
many elephants and some of those that are left should be taken into
captivity. Based on what science?
Sri Lanka Needs Wild Elephants
Sri Lanka needs development, of that there is no doubt, but it must be
planned and not at the whim of political ego and expediency to fulfill
voting ambitions for the moment while leaving a legacy of environmental and
economic ruin for the future. Apart from being a keystone species, the
elephant is a creature that defines its ecosystem and without which that
system would be dramatically changed or cease to exist altogether;
elephants, and all other wildlife, are a source of economic wealth to this
country. Prior to the pandemic, thousands of foreign visitors came to Sri
Lanka to enjoy its tropical environment and pristine wilderness. Over 38
per cent of all visitors to this country went on safari to a national park
or sanctuary. They went there to see wild animals in their natural
surroundings, healthy and free. The “gathering” of elephants at Minneriya
and Kaudulla has worldwide renown and Sri Lanka’s tourism advertising is
prominently led by pictures of its natural wonders.
Elephants also contribute to the economy of local communities. The hundreds
of safari jeep drivers, hotel owners and workers in these hotels that
surround the Minneriya, Kaudulla, Uda Walawe, Wilpattu and Yala National
Parks give evidence of this. In addition, with innovative thinking, other
populations who live with wild animals as neighbours can earn an income
from eco-tourism, thereby subsidising the paltry amounts they make from
slaving for months in their cultivations. This will require a partnership
between the Government, private enterprise and local communities but will
result in strengthening the conservation of these protected areas as they
become of increased economic worth to the local people. This is already
practiced in a few places in Sri Lanka.
Saving Lives
It must not be forgotten that between 2010 and 2020, over 800 humans lost
their lives as well. These were fathers, mothers, sons and daughters, each
a valuable life, the number of which could have been reduced by
implementation of the updated national policy, for within its proposed
actions, the protection of people is paramount.
Currently, there are approximately 4,500 kms of electric fencing in Sri
Lanka that is placed, quite obviously, in the wrong place with about 65 per
cent ridiculously separating Forest Department PAs from DWC PAs, with HEC
increasing year on year. Astonishingly, the State Ministry responsible for
HEC is considering spending a further Rs. 3 billion in erecting another
1,500 kms of electric fencing. Does this make fiscal sense, especially on a
strategy that has failed so abjectly, for 72 years? At this time of
economic stress? At a recent meeting the Chair of the Committee on Public
Accounts (COPA) asked the Secretary to the Ministry if he could guarantee
that this additional fencing would address the problem. He could not give
this assurance as he stated that they “…did not know how elephants would
behave”.
Yet, there are those who do; those who assisted in the upgrade of the
national policy and who helped in preparing the National Action Plan for
the President. Electric fences, for the present, are the best way of
keeping elephants from an area but they need to be erected in the right
place. As the priority should be to protect human life, fences should be
erected around villages and village cultivations. This will not only
protect human lives but will also permit elephants to wander on their
traditional ranges without harm to man or beast. The fences around
cultivations are designed to be seasonal so that they may be removed during
fallow times. This, in turn, encourages elephants and other wild animals to
browse on the remaining stubble, opening an opportunity for the farmer to
profit from eco-tourism.
CCR has piloted this method in over 30 villages in the North West and North
Central Provinces and it has proven to be 100 per cent successful. This is
because the local villager and farmer associations have ownership of the
fences; they erect them, manage their maintenance and ensure that it is
done. In addition, each farmer pays a nominal fee towards its upkeep and,
therefore, has a financial investment in ensuring its success. This also
takes away the burden of electric fence maintenance from the public purse.
Look to the Future
What the Committee on the Preservation of Wildlife did get right in 1949 is
that there must be connectivity between PAs. They are vital for the health,
not just of elephants, but of all large mammals, to ensure the interchange
of gene populations and to prevent them having to intrude on human
habitation and cultivation. These, however, must be based on science and on
a landscape basis, dependent on the movement of species. The long narrow
corridors originally envisaged are of no use to wild animals who, apart
from being unable to read maps, stick to centuries old inherited learnings
in moving from one place to another in search of food and water while
mixing with other populations of their kind along the way. These studies
will also show areas that are not used by wild animals that can then be
released for development – planned development.
As it has quite rightly been claimed, Sri Lanka is greatly dependent on
agriculture for the subsistence of its people but clearing forests is an
insane way to try and achieve it, especially as the existing farming
practices are inefficient and low in productivity. Forests are vital for
rainfall and the preservation of water catchment areas. Their destruction
will only result in less water and harsher conditions for agriculture;
farmers who already lie at the bottom of the income table despite the
important function they perform will be further entrapped in poverty.
Cutting forests as is currently being practiced illegally and under the
Cabinet approved policy to clear Other State Forests will only result in
environmental degradation, agricultural disaster and an increase in HEC.
What is Left for Tomorrow?
Sri Lanka is at a crucial point in its history when decisions made today
will impact generations to come as at no other time since independence.
This is because everything is at critical levels, exacerbated by a
pandemic, and the wrong decision can result in irreversible, damaging
consequences for decades to come. The pandemic has taught us that we are
inconsequential when it comes to nature. Mess with it and it will bite
back, taking millions of us away, for it does not need us for its
existence. If we destroy our wildlife and forests and oceans, then it is
only us humans who will suffer, even within the lifetimes of the elders who
now have power to determine what the future might be.
In terms of culture and justice and humanity, future generations will hold
us responsible if their inheritance is to be thirst, hunger and
unbreathable air. The names of those whose policies made it possible will
be cursed forever, as well as those who stayed silent and let it happen.
“Save the elephants, and then you save the forest – and then you save
yourself.” Mark Shand
https://groundviews.org/2021/05/04/human-elephant-conflict-lessons-not-learnt/