Ceylon Journal of Science (Bio. Sci.) 44 (1): 1-11, 2015 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4038/cjsbs.v44i1.7336
LEAD ARTICLE
Managing Elephants in Sri Lanka: Where We Are and Where We Need to Be
Prithiviraj Fernando
Centre for Conservation and Research, Rajagiriya, Sri Lanka.
ABSTRACT
Asian elephants are ‘endangered’ but come into significant conflict with humans. Sri Lanka holds an important position in relation to Asian elephants, both in terms of species conservation and human-elephant conflict mitigation. Historical aspects of the two main conservation agencies in Sri Lanka and difficulty of coordination between them has prevented a landscape level holistic approach to conservation in general and elephants in particular. The primary objective of elephant management is human-elephant conflict mitigation and secondarily elephant conservation. Many human-elephant conflict mitigation activities are ineffective and in some cases cause its escalation and wider spread. Others are extremely detrimental to elephant conservation. Effective human-elephant conflict mitigation and elephant conservation requires a paradigm change. Elephant management needs to be based on science and evidence rather than outdated beliefs and false assumptions. Unless immediate and effective remedial measures are taken, human-elephant conflict will continue to escalate and the elephant population continue to decline.
Keywords: Asian elephant, human-elephant conflict, conservation
INTRODUCTION While many subspecies of the Asian elephant were described in the past (Deraniyagala 1955), Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) once existed subsequently most of them including the Bornean across south and south-east Asia from Iraq in the E. m. borneansis were synonymized under E. m. west, Himalayan foothills in the north and China in indicus, while the Sri Lankan E. m. maximus and the east, together with four island populations in Sri Sumatran E. m. sumatranus were held to be valid Lanka, Java, Sumatra and Borneo (Fernando & subspecies taxa (Choudhury et al. 2008). Genetic Leimgruber 2011). They are now extinct in over analysis recognized the Bornean population as a 80% of this range and are limited to a number of separate Evolutionarily Significant Unit, fragmented and isolated populations in Sri Lanka, suggesting that it is a valid subspecies (Fernando et India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, al. 2003). Therefore, currently four subspecies are Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Malaysia, recognized. The Sri Lankan elephant is the forma Indonesia and China (Fernando & Pastorini 2011). typica as the original scientific description of the The global population of Asian elephants is around elephant in 1758 by Linnaeus was based on 40,000 (Fernando & Pastorini 2011) numbering material thought to originate from Sri Lanka. less than 10% of African elephants (Loxodonta Recent examination of the source material found africana and L. cyclotis) (Blanc et al. 2007). that the foetus used by Linnaeus was in fact that of Current Asian elephant populations in Bhutan, an African elephant (Cappellini et al. 2013). This Nepal, Vietnam and China all number less than 200 would indicate that the name Elephas maximus individuals (Fernando & Pastorini 2011). Given its should refer to the African and not the Asian decline in range and numbers and the on-going elephant. However among the material cited by threats to the species, Asian elephants have been Linnaeus was a description of a skeleton, which listed as ‘Endangered’ under IUCN red listing was traced to a museum in Florence and found to criteria (IUCN 2015). The population in Sumatra be of an Asian elephant (Cappellini et al. 2013). has undergone sharp decline in numbers and range Genetic analysis of the skeleton found consistency in the recent past (Azmi & Gunaryadi 2011) and are with a putative Sri Lankan origin, and it has now now categorized as ‘Critically Endangered’ been designated as a lectotype (Cappellini et al. (Gopala et al. 2011). 2013). Thus, the nomenclature of the species and the forma typica status of the Sri Lankan elephant remain unchanged.
Author’s email: [email protected] 2 Fernando
As one of three island populations, as a population section of vegetation of well over a hundred species at one extreme of the species’ range, as the (Vancuylenberg 1977; Sukumar 1990; Somasiri & population with the highest genetic diversity Weerakoon 2007). They tend to prefer grasses as (Fernando et al. 2000; 2013; Vidya et al. 2005a, b), they grow in abundance, hence are easy to gather and as a population consisting of a distinctive and have few secondary compounds. However in subspecies (Choudhury et al. 2008), the Sri Lankan most Asian elephant habitats, grasses are available population of Asian elephants holds a unique and only seasonally. The next choice of elephants is very important position in the conservation of the pioneer species as they too grow in abundance, can species. Additionally, although having only 1-2% be repeatedly harvested and persist through the dry of global Asian elephant range (Fernando et al. season. Elephants have overcome the thorny 2011), Sri Lanka holds 10-20% of the global Asian defences of such vegetation by developing thick elephant population, at a density of around ten and tough skin and tolerant digestive tract lining, so times that of any other range state (Fernando & can devour them in quantity. Elephants also Pastorini 2011). Of the 13 range states, Sri Lanka consume shade tolerant species, but only in small has the third highest human density and the highest amounts due to the issues caused by ingestion of level of human-elephant conflict (HEC). Given that secondary compounds. the main threat to Asian elephants across the range is HEC (Fernando & Pastorini 2011), the Habitat preferences conservation of elephants and mitigation of HEC in Asian elephants are an ‘edge species’ dependent on Sri Lanka and its successes and failures are of great forest-edges or eco-tones (Fernando 2006; relevance to the management of elephants Fernando & Leimgruber 2011). While they prefer worldwide. grasslands, such habitat is not a prominent feature of the tropical areas they occupy. Over much of Asian elephant range the climax vegetation is ECOLOGICAL ASPECTS RELEVANT tall/mature forest where most of the productivity is TO HEC AND ELEPHANT in the canopy, out of elephant reach. Saplings and MANAGEMENT other vegetation that comprise the sparse undergrowth in such forests are mostly unpalatable Morphology shade tolerant species. However, in locations where Elephants, with an adult weight of 1,000-5,000 kg light levels are high as in tree fall gaps and along are the biggest terrestrial animals. As a result, river courses, pioneer species and grasses through evolutionary time they have been immune proliferate. Elephants mainly use such restricted, to physical challenge by other species. When ephemeral and seasonal habitats corresponding to challenged, animals respond by ‘fight or flight’ ‘forest edge’ in tall/mature forests. In such forests, reaction. With repeated challenge, animals are elephants occur at low densities of about 0.2 2 more likely to respond with ‘fight’ as indicated by elephants/km (Sukumar 2003). Where forest is cut the proverb ‘even the worm will turn’. Given their and burnt, and allowed to regenerate, as in slash- evolutionary history, elephants are far more likely and-burn or shifting cultivation, the entire area to ‘turn’ and respond with aggression to challenge becomes ‘edge habitat’ (Fernando 2006; Fernando or confrontation than other species. & Leimgruber 2011; Pastorini et al. 2013). Areas under an intermediate disturbance regime support 2 Feeding behaviour elephant densities of around 3 elephants/km One of the main problems for plants is consumption (Sukumar 2003), a magnitude higher than by animals. Plants have evolved to address this tall/mature forests. issue in a number of ways. Grasses develop very rapidly and grow from the proximal end of the A larger proportion of high elephant density blade so that grazing damage is limited. Many habitats are administered under the Forest shrubs and small trees have evolved mechanical Department and come under the designation of defences such as thorns. Others invest in secondary ‘Other State Forests’. Most lands under the compounds that are poisonous. Plants that colonize Department of Wildlife Conservation are mature open spaces are called ‘pioneer species’ and tend to forests or in succession and will revert to mature adopt rapid growth and mechanical defences. forests, leading to decreasing elephant densities Plants that grow in shade cannot grow fast and tend (Fernando 2015). The only exceptions are reservoir to invest in secondary compounds. Elephants are bed grasslands such as Minneriya and Kaudulla mega-herbivores, with a daily food requirement of where the agent of disturbance is annual flooding. about 10% of their body weight (Sukumar 1989). Thus they have to find a large quantity of food, Home ranges which means they cannot be specialized feeders There is a common perception that elephants are a selecting a narrow range of plants or the choicest migratory species. Studies done in Africa have plant parts. Consequently elephants have evolved suggested that particular populations of elephants to be generalist herbivores consuming a wide cross are migratory, some are composed of both Managing Elephants in Sri Lanka 3 migratory and non-migratory herds and others non- Reproduction migratory (Thouless 1996; Grainger et al. 2005; Asian elephants have a gestation period of 22 Galanti et al. 2006). Some studies on the ranging months and suckle the young for about 2-3 years. patterns of Asian elephants have suggested that Therefore a female comes into oestrus or mating Indian elephants migrate (Sukumar 1989; Baskaran condition once every 4-5 years (Eisenberg et al. et al. 1993; Datye & Bhagwat 1995) and others that 1971; Rasmussen & Schulte 1998). As a result it is they do not (Easa 1988; Joshua & Johnsingh 1993). not advantageous for a male to develop a strong Radio tracking studies in Sri Lanka have pair bond and associate with a female throughout. conclusively proven that Sri Lankan elephants do Nor does it facilitate developing a harem system as not migrate, but instead have circumscribed ranges in many ungulate species, especially in view of the to which they show high fidelity (Fernando et al., considerable costs of group living. Instead, a 2008a). However they may show seasonal receptive female broadcasts her condition through movement in response to agricultural patterns, pheromones secreted in the excreta and males in the moving out of areas when they are seasonally surrounding area are attracted to her at ovulation cultivated and moving back after harvest (Pastorini (Hess et al., 1983). A competition for mating et al., 2013). Elephants have a strong attachment to ensues among the males, with the victor mating their home ranges as it is related to their fitness with the female and possibly guarding her over the (Fernando et al. 2008). The forcible removal of fertile period (Eisenberg et al., 1971; Rasmussen & elephants from their home ranges greatly Schulte 1998). The biggest and the strongest males jeopardizes their survival. win the mating rights and this has led to marked sexual dimorphism with males being up to three The home range size of African elephants varies times heavier than females. Thus, it is from over 15,000 km2 in the Namib Desert to about advantageous for a male elephant to become bigger 15 km2 in the highly productive Lake Manyara and stronger which requires nutritious food. The system (Douglas-Hamilton 1973; Lindeque & easiest way to obtain better food is by raiding crops, Lindeque 1991). Home ranges of Asian elephants which grow in concentrated lots and have been also show wide variation with ranges of over 4,000 enhanced by people to be more nutritious and km2 being reported from North-east India and 30- energy rich over thousands of years (Sukumar 50 km2 from North-central India and Malaysia 1989). Thus there is a strong innate drive in male (Olivier 1978; Joshua & Johnsingh 1993). The elephants to raid crops (Sukumar & Gadgil 1998). home ranges of Sri Lankan elephants vary from Crop raiding by male elephants far outstrips any about 50 to 400 km2 (Fernando et al., 2008a). raiding by females (Ekanayake et al. 2011; Therefore, elephant conservation and management Thaufeek et al. 2014) and males rather than herds has to be of an appropriate scale and requires a are responsible for all house breaking and most landscape approach. HEC incidents.
Social organization Elephant numbers, densities and distribution Elephants have a sexually dimorphic social There is a misconception that elephant numbers in organization with largely solitary adult males and Sri Lanka have been increasing over the past few herds composed of adult females and young decades. Past estimates have ranged from 1,600- (Fernando & Lande 2000). Male offspring remain 2,200 in 1969 (McKay 1973) 2,000-4,000 (Olivier close to their mothers till about 2-3 years of age and 1978), 5,000 (Hoffmann 1978), 2,700-3,200 then become progressively independent. From (Santiapillai & Jackson 1990), 1,967 – excluding about 5-8 years they spend more time on the fringes the North (Hendavitharana et al. 1994) and 5,825 of the natal herd and gradually drift away. By about in 2011 (Anon. 2013). The argument for increased 10 years they are mostly independent of the natal numbers is based on selective use of past estimates. herd. The spatial dispersal of males has been If all estimates are considered, rather than an confirmed by genetic analysis (Vidya & Sukumar increase, wide fluctuation beyond plausible limits 2005). However, it is possible that some elephants is observed. All past estimates have been based on employ an alternate strategy of social but not ‘expert opinion’, except (Hendavitharana et al. spatial dispersal, with young males leaving the herd 1994) and (Anon. 2013) which were based on but remaining in the same area. Much of what a direct counts by the Department of Wildlife male knows is learnt through association with the Conservation. It is widely accepted that Asian natal herd in his formative years and such elephants cannot be accurately counted by direct knowledge is likely to have a major impact on its methods, necessitating technical, complex and behaviour as an adult. So for example if a herd is logistically intensive methods of estimation regularly subjected to aggression by people, adult (Jachmann 1991; Barnes et al. 1997; Fernando males originating from that herd are very likely to 2008). Therefore rather than estimates, the be very aggressive ‘problem males’. currently available numbers should be treated as ‘guesstimates’. Additionally there are no management decisions that can be made on 4 Fernando elephant numbers other than to cull the population utilization which was the remit of the Forest upon perceived ‘excess’, which is irrelevant to the Department. Since then, the vision of wildlife Sri Lankan situation (Fernando 2008). In contrast, conservation in Sri Lanka has been blinkered by mapping of elephant presence/absence at an this dichotomy. appropriate scale provides repeatable objective assessment of elephant distribution and is of much A Committee on Preservation of Wildlife relevance for management (Fernando 2008). Such appointed by the Ministry of Lands and Land assessment shows that elephant range has been Development submitted a report in 1959, which continuously decreasing, indicating that elephant included a map of ‘elephant corridors’. Permanent numbers are in fact declining in Sri Lanka. corridors linked the protected areas set aside for wildlife conservation, so that elephants could migrate from one to another. Temporary corridors WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN SRI were identified so that “when development takes LANKA place the herds of elephants can be driven into permanent corridors and National Reserves and Historical aspects Sanctuaries”. It further stated that “these temporary The beginning of modern wildlife management in corridors should therefore be the last to be Sri Lanka can be traced to the late 19th century, developed” (Anon. 1959), envisaging a future upon the establishment of the Forest Department in where all land other than that administered under 1885. In 1889 the then Conservator of Forests the Wildlife Department is converted to Colonel Clark R.A., brought to the notice of the exclusively human habitats. government the ‘disastrous effects of commercial exploitation of wildlife’, mainly that of deer and Current situation sambur that were being killed for export of hides Protected areas were originally set up to preserve (Anon. 1959). One of the first items of legislature wildlife, safeguarding them from indiscriminate dealing specifically with wildlife was enacted in slaughter and commercial exploitation. In effect, to 1891 entitled ‘An Ordinance to prevent the wanton provide safe havens from the dangers posed by destruction of elephants, buffalo and other game’ humans. However with time the flipside, the idea (Anon. 1959). The Game Protection Society of that wildlife should not be outside protected areas, Ceylon was set up in 1894 to fight against became dominant. This is especially so in the case widespread commercial exploitation. In early of elephants but is increasingly applied to other 1900s the government on the advice of the ‘dangerous species’ such as leopards, crocodiles Conservator of Forests declared the Yala and and snakes; and ‘nuisance species’ such as Wilpattu areas as Reserves under the Forest monkeys. Increasingly, protected areas are viewed Ordinance. The Fauna and Flora Ordinance No. 1 as bottomless pits where all wildlife can and should was enacted in 1909, which consolidated the be deposited. existing laws pertaining to wildlife protection (de Silva & de Silva 2007). In the latter part of the 20th century the Forest Department changed tack and charted a more Large-scale land clearing for ‘agricultural conservation oriented course. A moratorium on development’ in the dry zone began in early 20th logging of natural forests was imposed in 1990 and century and firearms proliferated, leading to ‘Other State Forests’ - forested lands administered massive destruction of fauna and its commercial by Government Agents, were brought under the exploitation, engendering fear of rapid decline and Forest Department in 2001, thus strengthening the extinction of elephants and other species (Anon. conservation focus of the Forest Department. 1959). In 1930 the administration of forests came Currently, the Department of Wildlife under the newly set up Ministry of Agriculture and Conservation and the Forest Department are the Lands, which appointed a Fauna and Flora main administrators of natural areas with Wildlife Protection Committee. The recommendations of being responsible for around 40% of natural this committee resulted in the Fauna and Flora habitats and Forest around 55%. Consequently, the Protection Ordinance No.2 of 1937 and the setting limitation of wildlife in general and elephants in up of a number of protected areas for wildlife particular to Department of Wildlife Conservation conservation. areas has lost all relevance. Unfortunately this fact is yet to be accepted and the management of The conservation branch of the Forest Department elephants continues to be largely based on limiting was made into an independent department in 1950 them to Wildlife Department areas. as the Wildlife Department. This action divested conservation responsibility from the Forest In terms of conservation in general and elephant Department and created a formal distinction management in particular, the wisdom of having between conservation, which was the responsibility two independent departments managing different of the Wildlife Department and that of forest areas, with little coordination and collaboration has Managing Elephants in Sri Lanka 5 to be questioned. Modern conservation concepts environmentalists on and off, by far the biggest loss focus on landscapes rather than isolated protected of habitat is from encroachment and government areas. Having two independent departments, often development projects. As long as the practice of with divergent institutional issues, administrative periodic legalization of encroachments persists, structures, management objectives, views and such losses will continue to mount. expertise, makes it difficult to undertake landscape level conservation. One possibility out of this Other concerns in amalgamating the two conundrum would be to revert to the original departments are mostly administrative in nature. prescription and amalgamate the two departments. For most of their existence the two departments Such a merging would enable the smoother have also been under different ministries. To functioning and adoption of a holistic approach to provide a meaningful foundation for conservation, conservation. at a minimum they should be under the same ministry. In addition, putting in place a mechanism Would such amalgamation result in any detriment for active coordination between the Forest to conservation? Given the historical background Department and the Widlife Department in all of the two Departments, there remains a feeling conservation activities is a must and is critical for among environmentalists that Forest Department elephant conservation and HEC mitigation. areas are more readily handed over or taken over for development. Current conservation areas under the Forest Department are designated as Forest ELEPHANT MANAGEMENT IN SRI Reserves, Proposed Forest Reserves and Other LANKA State Forests. ‘Forest Reserves’ are areas that have been identified as having a high conservation value HEC and its mitigation and are usually not divested. They mostly consist Asian elephants are one of a very few species that of mature forests. Proposed Reserves are areas that are endangered yet come into considerable conflict are in the process of being declared as Forest with humans. Elephants suffer from a plethora of Reserves. However, it is a slow process and such human inflicted maladies such as getting trunks and areas are more liable to be divested. They consist legs cut by wire nooses, jaws being shattered by of mature and secondary forests. ‘Other State ‘jaw-bombs’, poisoning, falling into wells, Forests’ are mostly areas that were formerly electrocution, and being shot. Across the range, designated as ‘Government Agent Forests’ and HEC has become a major, conservation, socio- consist of secondary forests, scrublands, chena- economic and political issue (Fernando & Pastorini lands and non-forest habitats such as grasslands 2011). Consequently, management of Asian and bare lands. The historical leanings of the Forest elephants has largely been shaped by the need to Department towards forest utilization and the mitigate HEC. Major initiatives are undertaken to identity with ‘forests’ per-se leads to a lower value mitigate damage to crops and property by elephants being assigned to ‘Other State Forests’. and considerable funds are expended on electric Consequently they are more likely to be divested fences and other elephant barriers, other methods and given over for development, and subject to land of crop protection, insurance and compensation. In alienation. Thus the lands most likely to be divested Sri Lanka HEC annually kills around 250 elephants and developed are the ones that support the highest and 70 people (Fernando et al. 2011). While penal densities of elephants hence the most important in action against offenders for elephant killings are a terms of elephant conservation. handful, the number of elephants translocated in response to human killings, by capture transport Lands under the Wildlife Department are also not and elephant drives are commensurate with the immune to being divested and encroached. For number of such cases. ‘HEC mitigation’ is almost example the larger area of Hakgala Strict Nature entirely from the point of view of mitigating the Reserve, which is the highest conservation impact of elephant depredation on people. This designation under the Department of Wildlife state of affairs is not unique to Sri Lanka but also Conservation, currently consists of villages and a common to the other range countries and holds true semi-government livestock farm. Areas in for ‘mitigation’ of human-wildlife conflict in Lunugamvehera, Somawathiya and Wasgomuwa general. National Parks have come under development/encroachment. Sanctuaries such as Management actions Weerawila, Anawilundawa and Attidiya are largely The management of elephants has two major encroached or now exist only on paper. objectives, HEC mitigation and elephant conservation, with the former taking priority in The loss of conservation areas to development is practice. In Sri Lanka as across the range, the main not unique to either department but a larger approach to elephant management has been the conservation issue. While the alienation of natural restriction of elephants to protected areas. The habitat for development attracts the attention of rationale being that development outside protected 6 Fernando areas can then occur without incurring damage took a decision to minimize translocations and to from elephants and that the elephants will be able radio collar all translocated elephants so that to live contentedly within the protected areas remedial action could be taken where translocation without harm from people. The main activities fails. However, both the decisions were later conducted for HEC mitigation and elephant reversed. Translocations of ‘problem elephants’ conservation in Sri Lanka are translocation by without collaring continues to be undertaken by the capture-transport, elephant drives, distribution of Wildlife Department, mainly as a means of elephant thunder crackers, construction of electric pacifying communities protesting against human fences and law enforcement. deaths or property damage.
Translocation by capture-transport Elephant prisons Translocation through capture-transport has been In 2010 the Department of Wildlife Conservation the main approach taken to managing ‘problem set up an ‘Elephant Rehabilitation Center’. The elephants’ in Sri Lanka (Fernando 2011; Fernando idea was based on the ‘holding-ground’ concept et al. 2012). Such action is most often taken as a identified in the National Policy, which envisaged result of human deaths caused by an elephant or a fenced-in area into which problem elephants frequent damage to houses by elephants searching could be translocated. A 20 km2 area inside the for stored grain. In translocation by capture- Lunugamvehera National Park was surrounded by transport, the animal is immobilized by injecting an a high specification electric fence and an elephant anaesthetic drug, tied up using ropes and ditch constructed along part of it. However of transported by vehicle to a remote site and released. around 15 elephants translocated to it, none The main objective of translocation is removing the remained and it was soon abandoned. Subsequently elephant from a conflict area and secondarily its a second ‘holding ground’ was constructed in continued existence in the wild (Fernando et al. Horowpatana. It consists of a physical fence 2012). Such action is driven by pressurizing the consisting of nail studded concrete columns and Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC) steel cables, with an outer and inner electric fence, through protests, public outcry, media and encircling an area 10 km2 in extent. Constructed at politicians. a cost of over Rs. 300 million, it has not been tested as yet. Translocation as a management tool needs to fulfil several conditions. Firstly it should eliminate the Elephant drives problem causing elephant from the site of conflict. Elephant drives are a carryover from the ‘game In view of the known extents over which elephants drives’ of colonial hunting, where ‘beaters’ drove range, their translocation over distances of a few elephants and other wildlife into ‘sportsmen’s kilometres is likely to result in their release close to guns. Elephant drives are conducted in forests or within their home range. This inevitably results where the elephants take refuge. The drivers enter in their return to former haunts. The practicality of the forest from one side and shout, light flares and removing elephants beyond their home range needs elephant thunder crackers, and attempt to panic the to be considered in the light of the extent of elephants into running. Where the elephants do not ranging, which for a male, may be up to 400 km2. run, or turn towards the drivers, shooting at them However, even this cannot guarantee the non- with shotguns using live SG cartridges (pellets) is return of animals. Studies done in Sri Lanka resorted to. through GPS satellite radio-tracking of 16 translocated ‘problem elephants’ found that all of Three forms of elephant drives are undertaken by them left the National Park they were translocated the Department of Wildlife Conservation. The first to (Fernando et al. 2012). Some returned to the site is where individual males are chased from a of capture, from distances as far as 100 km. Some particular location due to public complaint, often wandered over extensive areas over ten times their following house breaking, human injury or death, normal home ranges, sometimes walking into or an elephant entering a developed area and taking highly populated areas and creating chaos. Others refuge in a patch of forest. The objective is to chase left the park but settled down in nearby Forest the elephant from the immediate vicinity of the Department areas and most of these created new incident. Such drives are conducted by a few HEC in adjacent areas. The percentage of people Wildlife personnel and are very common in all killed by translocated elephants far exceeds that by areas with elephants, occurring on a daily basis in non-translocated elephants and translocated areas such as the north-west. They take a few hours elephants have a higher mortality rate (Fernando et and cease once the elephant moves away from the al. 2012). Therefore, translocating ‘problem location. Usually elephant thunder crackers are elephants’ does not help mitigate HEC and in many used. If it fails to put the elephant to flight or if the cases causes its intensification and wider spread. It elephant reacts aggressively, it is shot at with SG is also detrimental to elephant conservation. In cartridges. 2010, the Department of Wildlife Conservation Managing Elephants in Sri Lanka 7
The second form of drive is to chase away there is not one area where elephants have been elephants from a locality where they are causing completely eliminated as a result (Fernando 1993; issues such as crop raiding. These drives may last Jayewardene 1994). Radio telemetry and from a few hours to a few days and are regularly observational studies have shown that the only conducted throughout elephant areas in Sri Lanka elephants that can be ‘successfully’ driven are the in response to public protest. They are conducted innocent herds and not the problem causing males. by Wildlife personnel, sometimes with assistance However, not even all herds can be removed by from villagers and aim to provide temporary relief drives. The methods employed for driving by chasing away elephants from an area. However, elephants – creating disturbance, shouting, lighting in regions such as the north-west where such drives firecrackers and flares, are all confrontational and are conducted regularly, the areas they are chased are the same as used for crop protection. By intense into are no different to the areas they are chased and sustained subjecting of elephants to the same from, as the elephants and people live in a methods, drives make elephants non-responsive to heterogeneous habitat mosaic. them, refractory to being chased and increase their aggression towards humans. Driving of innocent In both above types of drives the elephants are herds turns them into problem-causing herds with chased around within their home range. The increased likelihood of raiding. Shooting at decision to conduct both above types of drives are aggressive males with SG cartridges turns them taken at field level and represent a ‘first response’ into killer elephants who charge on sight. The to public complaints and protests. history of elephant drives and their continuance is one of the main factors responsible for the very The third type of drives are undertaken to high levels of HEC in Sri Lanka. permanently remove elephants from a large area. They require advance planning and allocation of Impact of drives on elephants specific funds. They are most often conducted in All drives are conducted in elephant habitat and not relation to large irrigation development projects, in developed areas, most often in Forest where the line agency provides funds to the Department areas. Sometimes elephants are also Department of Wildlife Conservation for drives, as driven from Department of Wildlife Conservation a ‘HEC mitigation measure’. The heyday of such areas as from the Nimalawa Sanctuary (close to mega drives was during the Mahaweli development Yala National Park) in 2004 and Bundala National period in the 1970s (Jayewardene 1996). However Park in 2006. Monitoring of elephant herds that lost in all these drives some elephants did not leave part or the entirety of their home range due to drives while other returned (Jayewardene 1994). The last has shown that herds do not adapt to new areas such mega drive was conducted in 2005-2006 over easily and suffer very high morbidity and mortality. a period of one and a half years, in the Walawe Left Exceeding the carrying capacity of protected areas Bank Development area. It removed around 225 by driving large numbers of elephants into them elephants, but left behind over 400 in the drive area. and restricting them there by electric fences leads to starvation and death of elephants. These impacts Drives of one to a few months duration have been are not limited to the elephants that are driven in conducted in the north-west, north-central and Uva and equally impact those that were in the park areas in the past year or so. Such drives aim to previously, due to increased competition for remove elephants from their home ranges and limited resources. relocate them to another area, usually a Department of Wildlife Conservation protected area. They may From both HEC mitigation and elephant employ hundreds of people including both Wildlife conservation points of view, drives are extremely Department personnel and villagers who are detrimental. Therefore suspension of elephant remunerated. In recent times such drives have been drives should be a priority. combined with temporary electric fencing erected along strips cleared through forest, dividing it into Distribution of elephant thunder crackers blocks. Once the elephants are driven during the Annually over Rs. 50 million is spent in purchasing day, the electric fences are erected to prevent them elephant thunder crackers (Fernando et al. 2011). coming back to the ‘cleared area’ in the night. They are distributed free of charge to villagers by Additionally, water sources are guarded to prevent the Department of Wildlife Conservation and elephants’ access to drinking water so that they are through the Divisional Secretariats. The supply of forced to keep marching. elephant thunder crackers encourages confrontation of elephants and aggression towards Impact of drives on HEC them. Similar to drives, the indiscriminate and wide All drives subject elephants to intense conflict and spread use of thunder crackers by the public results in the case of mega-drives, for sustained periods of in habituation and increased aggression by many months. Although drives have been elephants. When the Wildlife Department is called conducted for many decades all over Sri Lanka, upon to chase such elephants in an emergency 8 Fernando situation, there is little recourse other than to shoot For effective HEC mitigation, electric fences at them, which in turn increases aggression many should be used solely to prevent elephant fold. depredation and not as boundary markers. Thus, fences inside forests, fences with elephants on both Phasing out the distribution of elephant thunder sides and non-functional fences should be relocated crackers and replacement by non-confrontational to forest-developed area boundaries. To be protection methods would prevent continued effective, a paradigm change in the approach to escalation of HEC. In the interim, two strengths of electric fencing is needed. Electric fences are elephant firecrackers could be produced with a constructed entirely for the benefit of people. lower explosive strength to be given to the public Therefore, instead of the conservation sector, and the current full strength ones reserved for the communities that are protected by electric fences exclusive use of the Wildlife Department in need to take the lead in construction and emergency situations. maintenance of electric fences. Institutions, whose primary mandate is people’s welfare and Electric fencing development, need to provide funding and play a Electric fences are arguably the most effective tool major role in technical assistance, monitoring and for preventing crop depredation by elephants ensuring the proper function of fences. (Fernando et al. 2008b). More than 2500 km of electric fencing has been constructed by the Other elephant barriers Department of Wildlife Conservation for HEC Other elephant barriers such as physical fences mitigation. The majority of these fences are on the (barbed wire, razor wire, concrete, stone) elephant boundary of protected areas of the Wildlife ditches, bio-fences, bee-hive fences and chilli Department (Fernando et al. 2011). In most cases fences are largely unsuccessful in preventing the area adjacent is forest land under the Forest elephant depredation as there are major issues with Department, where also there are elephants. cost, logistics and the effort needed for their Consequently elephants are found on both sides of implementation (Fernando et al. 2008b). Various the majority of electric fences built by the Wildlife stakeholders have tried out elephant ditches and Department. In such instances the fences prevent bio-fences as elephant barriers but they have been elephants in the Forest Department areas from complete failures. Similarly, methods such as utilizing the resources in the Wildlife Department alternative crops and livelihoods, supplementary areas, forcing them to look for new resources. As feeding and habitat management have little then there are no fences between the Forest relevance to HEC mitigation at an appropriate Department areas and developed areas, elephants scale. increasingly venture into villages and cultivated fields, causing increased HEC. Law enforcement The elephant is given special protection under the Fences inside forests are difficult to maintain and a Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance, which couple of years after construction, become non- provides for the protection and conservation of all functional. Additionally, such fences are much fauna and flora in Sri Lanka and under which the more likely to be challenged and broken by Department of Wildlife Conservation functions. elephants as they are free to spend time next to Under the laws enacted therein the harming or them and try out various methods of overcoming killing of an elephant carries a penalty of a fine of them. Electric fencing is only a psychological Rs. 150,000 – 500,000 or imprisonment of 2-5 barrier (Fernando et al. 2008b). Once elephants years or both fine and imprisonment. However, learn to break them, fences become useless. prosecution of people for causing elephant Electric fences are constructed solely for protecting morbidity and mortality is very poor. For example, human habitations, cultivations and lives. in Sri Lanka around 250 elephants are killed by Therefore, to be effective they need to be on the people every year but the number of prosecutions boundary of developed areas with elephant habitat, are only a handful due to the difficulty of and not inside forests. If fences are located on the identifying and apprehending the culprits. boundary of settlements and cultivations it is a simple matter for communities to maintain them as Management planning they live and work right next to them. Such A National Policy for the Conservation and community electric fences have been very Management of Wild Elephants in Sri Lanka’ was successfully implemented in areas such as developed in 2006 and ratified by the Cabinet of Ehetuwewa in the north-west, formerly an area Ministers. A National Action Plan based on the with the highest level of HEC. Community electric policy was developed in 2010 and presented to the fences that protect villages are permanent and ones then President who approved its implementation. that protect paddy fields, deployed seasonally. Both the Policy and Action Plan were developed with wide stakeholder participation with the Wildlife and Forest Departments playing a leading Managing Elephants in Sri Lanka 9 role. However, to date both documents have largely Department of Wildlife Conservation for their been ignored in the planning and implementation support and dedication to conservation. of elephant management.
To be effective, management needs to be based on REFERENCES actual data on elephants rather than beliefs and traditional practices. Radio tracking data is Anon. (1959). Sessional Paper XIX-1959 Report of invaluable in assessing the effectiveness of the Committee on Preservation of Wild Life. management actions and their impact on elephants Government Press, Ceylon. Government of (Fernando et al. 2003), and in guiding development Ceylon. to prevent creating HEC and its escalation Anon. (2013). The First Island Wide National (Fernando et al. 2015). Radio-tracking around 250 Survey of Elephants in Sri Lanka 2011. State elephants outside protected areas in the next few Printing Corporation. Department of Wildlife years would provide a definitive map of elephant- Conservation, Sri Lanka. use areas and movement patterns. Such data could Azmi, W. and Gunaryadi, D. (2011). Current status effectively guide development and management, of Asian elephants in Indonesia. Gajah 35: 55- thus minimizing genesis of HEC and its escalation 61. and ensuring the conservation of elephants. Blanc J.J., Barnes, R.F.W., Craig, G.C., Dublin, H.T., Thouless, C.R., Douglas-Hamilton, I. and Hart, J.A. (2007). African Elephant Status CONCLUSION Report 2007: An update from the African Elephant Database. SSC Occasional Paper Elephant management requires major revamping, if Series 33. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. HEC mitigation and elephant conservation is to be Cappellini et al. (2013). Resolution of the type effective. Irrational acts such as removing material of the Asian elephant, Elephas elephants from Forest Department areas and maximus Linnaeus, 1758 (Proboscidea, construction of electric fences between Wildlife Elephantidae). Zoological Journal of the Department and Forest Department lands, as well Linnean Society 170: 222-232. as actions detrimental to HEC mitigation and Datye, H.S. and Bhagwat, A.M. (1995): Home elephant conservation such as elephant drives need range of elephants in fragmented habitats of to be stopped. Close coordination between the central India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 92: 1- Wildlife and Forest Departments is a must for 10. elephant management in particular and Deraniyagala, P.E.P. (1955). Some Extinct conservation in general. A science based Elephants, Their Relatives, and the Two Living management approach with decisions based on Species. National Museum of Ceylon, actual data rather than outdated beliefs and false Colombo. assumptions needs to be put in place. Elephant Douglas-Hamilton, I., (1973). On the ecology and management should have clear and appropriate behaviour of the lake Manyara elephants. E. objectives with impacts of management actions Afr. Wildl. J. 11: 401–403. monitored in an adaptive-management approach. Easa, P. S. (1988). Movement pattern of Asiatic Failure to act immediately and continuance of elephant, Elephas maximus in Parambikulam ‘business as usual’ will further escalate HEC and Wildlife Sanctuary, Kerala. Kerala Forest hasten the decline of the Sri Lankan elephant. Research Institute Research Report 54 (Summary). Kerala Forest Research Institute, India. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Eisenberg, J.F., McKay, G.M. and Jainudeen, M.R. (1971). Reproductive behavior of the Asiatic Much of the material this paper is based on is elephant (Elephas maximus maximus L.). derived from research conducted by the Centre for Behavior 38: 193-224. Conservation and Research (CCR). Therefore I Ekanayake, S.K.K., Campos-Arceiz A., would like to thank those that have supported our Rupasinghe, M., Pastorini, J. and Fernando, P. work, including the Abraham Foundation, United (2011). Patterns of crop raiding by Asian States Fish and Wildlife Service, Whitley Fund for elephants in a human-dominated landscape in Nature, Zoological Society of London, Auckland southeastern Sri Lanka. Gajah. 34: 20-25. Zoo, Mario-Hoedemaker Foundation and the Eco- Fernando, A.B. (1993). Recent elephant Health Alliance. I would also like to thank those conservation in Sri Lanka - A tragic story. who have collaborated with us, especially the Gajah 10: 19-25. Department of Wildlife Conservation Sri Lanka Fernando, P. (2006). Elephant conservation in Sri and the Smithsonian Institution USA. Finally my Lanka: Integrating scientific information to thanks to the CCR team and the officers of the guide policy. In: Principles of Conservation Biology, Eds. Groom, M.J., Meffe, G.K. and 10 Fernando
Carroll, C.R. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Gopala, A., Hadian, O., Sunarto, Sitompul, A., USA. pp 649-652. Williams, A., Leimgruber, P., Chambliss, S.E. Fernando, P. (2010). Managing 'problem and Gunaryadi, D. (2011). Elephas maximus elephants'. Loris 25: 32-36. ssp. sumatranus. The IUCN Red List of Fernando, P. (2015). The starving elephants of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. Udawalawe. Sanctuary Asia.
northwestern region of Sri Lanka. Gajah 27: Thouless, C.R. (1996). Home ranges and social
27-34. organization of female elephants in northern Santiapillai, C. and Jackson, P. (1990). The Asian Kenya. Afr. J. Ecol. 34: 284–297. Elephant: An Action Plan for its Conservation. Vancuylenberg, B.W.B. (1977). Feeding behavior IUCN/SSC Asian Elephant Specialist Group, of the Asiatic elephant in southeast Sri Lanka in
IUCN, Gland. relation to conservation. Biological
Sukumar, R. and Gadgil M. (1998) Male-female Conservation 12: 33-54.
Subspecies of Sri Lankan Mammals as Units of Biodiversity C Biodiversity of as Units Mammals Lankan ofSri Subspecies differences in foraging on crops by Asian Vidya, T.N.C., Fernando, P., Melnick, D.J. and elephants. Animal Behaviour 36: 1233-1235. Sukumar, R. (2005). Population genetic Sukumar, R. (1989). The Asian Elephant: Ecology structure and conservation of Asian elephants and Management. Cambridge University Press, (Elephas maximus) across India. Animal Cambridge. Conservation 8: 377-388. Sukumar, R. (1990). Ecology of the Asian elephant Vidya, T.N.C. and Sukumar, R. (2005). Social in Southern India. II. Feeding habits and crop organization of the Asian elephant (Elephas raiding patterns. Journal of Tropical Ecology 6: maximus) in southern India inferred from 33-53. microsatellite DNA. Journal of Ethology 23: Sukumar, R. (2003). The Living Elephants. Oxford 205-210. University Press, Oxford. Vidya, T. N. C., Fernando, P., Melnick, D. J. and Thaufeek, U.L., Padmalal, U.K.G.K. and Sukumar, R. (2005) Absence of genetic Fernando, P. (2014). Land use and human substructuring within the largest Asian elephant elephant conflict in the Sigiriya Sanctuary Sri (Elephas maximus) population, and Lanka. Gajah 40: 26-30. differentiation between geographically close populations: a paradox? Heredity 94: 71-80.
onservation
7