Villagers at the mercy of wild elephants:

The truth and the myth

Ravi Corea

CONFLICT: Recently there was a spate of news articles publicising the woes of villagers who were suffering from intense human elephant conflicts (HEC). There is no doubt that years of unplanned, mismanaged and unregulated land clearing with no consideration for ecological issues have had a huge impact on wildlife as well as disrupting ecosystem services.

With the approach to land use planning and land development not much different to the way it has been practiced for the past 50 years - there is no doubt that environmental issues such as HEC will only intensify over the coming years.

Human elephant conflict can be considered one of the biggest environmental issues Sri Lanka is facing presently. The other big environmental issues possibly are the loss of forest cover and resulting loss of biodiversity and the degradation and unregulated exploitation of wetlands, marine life and coastal resources.

Today while many villages suffer from HEC, it is erroneous to believe that either the Department of Wildlife Conservation or any other organisations have not made any attempts to address these issues. The Department of Wildlife has for at least the past 40 years made every effort within its capacity to address this issue by applying various measures: translocations, electric fences, elephant conservation units, etc.

The Sri Lanka Wildlife Conservation Society (SLWCS) has been addressing HEC issues for the past 10 years. Currently the Society has HEC mitigation projects at Wasgamuwa, Somawathiya and Lahugala and has constructed 41 kilometers of electric fencing to protect villages from crop raiding elephants.

Unfortunately though there is another side to this story of how villagers perceive the solutions they are offered at their request which is never publicised.

Through its pioneering "Saving Elephants by Helping People" project the SLWCS was the first organisation in Sri Lanka to put electric fences around villages. In 1997 the Sri Lanka Wildlife Conservation Society conducted an extensive survey of HEC in Sri Lanka to assess the success of the ongoing efforts at that time to resolve HEC.

The findings from this survey showed that most of the electric fences that were operating at the time were not effective due to the following reasons:

* Fences were erected not along either human or elephant ecological boundaries

* Lack of maintenance

* Lack of common ownership by the communities who are supposed to benefit from the fences

As a result of these finding the SLWCS concluded that:

* The communities that were affected by crop raiding elephants must be actively involved in the efforts to resolve HEC. Therefore projects to mitigate HEC need to be participatory.

* Electric fences were the most effective management tool against crop raiding elephants.

* To be effective, electric fences need to be installed either along elephant or human ecological/economic boundaries. An example of management based on good science and conservation practice.

In 1997, the Society initiated the project: "Saving Elephants by Helping People (SEHP) in Sri Lanka with the intention of contributing to the ongoing efforts to resolve human-elephant conflict for the long-term conservation of the elephant.

The objectives of SEHP were to develop solutions at the community level to reduce conflict through a better understanding of elephant ecology, biology, human needs, and elephant management technology.

The first community-based solar powered electric fence under the SEHP project was erected in the village of Gamburu-Oya/Pussellayaya in Wasgamuwa in 1998 with funding support from the USA based Wildlife Trust and the Disney Wildlife Conservation Fund.

At the time it was initiated SEHP was a pioneering and innovative project. For the first time in Sri Lanka the SEHP project fully integrated community participation as well as introduced the concept of fencing elephants "OUT" from certain areas (human settlements, fields, etc.) rather than "IN" in protected areas thereby leaving them more room to range outside of the national parks.

This is taking into consideration that 70% of the Sri Lankan elephant population ranges outside of the national parks. Based on the initial success of this effort subsequently several such electric fences were installed with the support of the US Fish & Wildlife Service, Alexander Abraham Foundation, International Elephant Foundation, Disney Wildlife Conservation Fund and World Women Work.

The aim of the SEHP project was to establish a buffer of electric-fenced villages so it will be possible to open up more areas for elephants to roam outside of the protected areas without coming into conflict with humans.

Today such an approach will also contribute to the implementation of Elephant Conservation Areas, Managed Elephant Reserves and Elephant Corridors that are proposed by the Department of Wildlife Conservation in their recently formulated national policy for elephant conservation and management.

As the old English saying goes, "you need two to Tango," addressing human-elephant conflicts is no different. The resolution of HEC needs the commitment of all the stakeholders to make sure the efforts that are extended to mitigate HEC achieve success.

The unfortunate reality is that most of the villagers who were initially clamouring and begging for succour from intense elephant problems showed a marked lack of appreciation and initiative when it came to fulfilling their share of the responsibilities when they were provided with the means to address their problems.

In the implementation of the SLWCS' electric fences the agreement is that the Society will provide at the cost of millions of rupees the electric fences to protect village homes and fields.

The villagers provide the labour to erect the fence and take over its long term maintenance, management and operations. Most villagers incur a huge cost to protect their crops. In 1998 the average cost for one farmer at Wasgamuwa to protect his home and fields for two cultivating seasons was approximately Rs. 5,800.

This is was just to purchase kerosene oil for the night lamps, flash light batteries and bulbs and firecrackers to scare away elephants. The energy spent breaking rest and keeping up in the night to protect crops and homes was not included. The average cost for one farmer to maintain an electric fence is approximately Rs. 300 per year!

In addition each farmer has to look after the section of the fence that has been allocated to him. This entails cleaning the underbrush and straightening leaning posts to repairing if the fence has been breached. All of the electric fence management is supposed to be administered through an Electric Fence Society, which collects the monthly dues as well as attends to maintenance issues.

A 10-kilometer electric fence erected around the village of Weheragalagama in Wasgamuwa in the Wilgamuwa Divisional Secretary's Division was in total disrepair due to lack of maintenance for nearly one and half years.

It took a lot of effort from SLWCS to address the issues at Weheragalagama and now finally at a further cost of nearly one million rupees the fence has been repaired and is in operation.

Another 14-kilometer electric fence erected in Lahugala just this past December is already showing the maladies of some of the villagers' lack of appreciation to maintain a hugely expensive electric fence that was provided to resolve their elephant problems at their request.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the Department Wildlife Conservation too faces similar issues with their fences. The tragedy is that all of these fences were erected at the request of these villagers. Similar to the recent newspaper accounts these villagers too were shouting for help to protect them from marauding elephants.

The reality of addressing HEC issues is unfortunately not a matter of providing these villagers with a solution as much as their lack of appreciation and ability to be responsible when they are provided with the means to resolve their problems.

We have even found that there are fractions within a village that work against to undermine its own fence.

The truth and the myth of human elephant conflict is that while most villagers will publicise their woes very few of them appreciate or like to be held responsible when a solution is offered.

The SLWCS is currently working with regional, local, and national level government officers at its project sites to develop a strategy to address this issue. This is a dilemma that needs to be rectified as soon as possible if efforts to conserve the remaining elephants and their habitats in Sri Lanka are to be successful.

(The writer is the President of Sri Lanka Wildlife Conservation Society - www.SLWCS.org)