By Rohan Wijesinha and Dr. Sumith Pilapitiya
Conservation has always been about the protection of people. Without fresh air, clean water, abundant oceans, adequate forests, healthy biodiversity, and every other ecosystem service, we will all die. In addition, these natural wonders contribute enormously to the economy of Sri Lanka, especially through tourism, which constitutes approximately 5% of its gross domestic product (GDP).
Sri Lanka at the top, or at the bottom?
As per figures released by the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC), between 2010 and 2020, 919 humans and 2,953 wild elephants lost their lives due to the human-elephant conflict. Sri Lanka has the highest rate of human-elephant conflict in the world. This is, perhaps, not that surprising as it also has the highest density of wild elephants per land area, among Asian elephant range states.
Wild elephants are found in 62% of the landscape of Sri Lanka, 44% of which they share with people, with the balance being protected areas. While this is a tribute to the tolerance of the Sri Lankan people, especially those who once lived with wild elephants as neighbours, this has changed dramatically. In the last few decades, major irrigation schemes opened large areas of the country for the development of agriculture. With it came new settlers with little experience of living with wildlife, and the conflict began to escalate.
As is human nature, the methods of killing have become more and more brutal, as evidenced, once again, by DWC’s records. Between 2015 and 2020, 318 elephants were shot, 186 were electrocuted, 44 were poisoned, and, worst of all, 349 were killed by hakka patas (jaw bombs), where explosives are secreted into fruit or vegetables that detonate on being bitten into. Rarely do these elephants die from the explosion, but with their mouthparts blown to bits, they soon succumb to blood loss and infection, or starvation, should they survive this initial suffering.
Effective protection of the people
[caption id="attachment_177017" align="aligncenter" width="433"]
Community-based fencing in Thanmannama[/caption]
The tolerance is still there, amongst most. Ask the communities most at risk of conflict and the majority will state that they do suffer. They seek a solution to the intrusion of wild elephants into their cultivations and homesteads, but without harming the elephants. In acknowledging that the elephant has a right to exist, their tolerance comes from knowledge. They understand that until the natural habitat of the elephant was encroached on, and their normal food and water sources destroyed or access to them blocked, there was no need for them to seek it in human cultivations and homesteads. They know that the true enemy is not the elephant or development, both of which this country desperately needs, but unplanned development.
At present, electric fences seem to be the best way of keeping elephants from moving between one place and another. These fences, however, have to be in the right places. Currently, there are enough electric fences in place to encircle the island three times over, and the DWC is asking for more. If the placement of the existing fences had been done correctly, on the boundaries that elephants relate to, then there should have been a dramatic reduction in human-elephant conflict. The reality is otherwise, with conflict increasing year on year with a corresponding rise in deaths.
Every life is precious
Many of the fences have been erected between DWC and Forest Department lands, with elephant habitat, and elephants, on both sides of them. Elephants travel in search of food and water. Block them from finding these essentials for their survival, they will seek it elsewhere – in human cultivations if needs be. Rather than erected in the ad hoc manner they are now, fences should be placed on ecological boundaries that are between the natural habitat of elephants and human cultivations and dwellings. It is this that will result in a dramatic reduction in conflict and thus the saving of lives.
In addition, the priority should be to protect human life – keep the people safe by placing fences around the villages and their cultivation. This would allow elephants to roam freely, as they once did, on their traditional ranges, with the inevitable reduction in conflict and the further saving of lives.
Tried and tested – it works
How do we know this? Because it has been tried and tested for many years now. In several parts of the country, Dr. Prithiviraj Fernando and the Centre for Conservation and Research (CCR), and others, have been piloting these schemes where human-elephant conflict is prevalent, and it works. The CCR has tested these methods in approximately 50 villages, and they have been 100% successful, as evidenced by the villagers’ comments.
An added advantage is that the fences are maintained by the people, the responsibility taken for the village and seasonal paddy field fences by the village communities and the local farmers’ associations, with each member paying a nominal fee for the costs involved. This is largely to create a sense of ownership by the communities.
This approach has been enshrined in the Cabinet-approved Policy for the Conservation of the Wild Elephant in Sri Lanka and in the National Action Plan drafted by a special committee appointed by H.E. the President to suggest measures for reducing the human-elephant conflict. Sadly, these rest on ministry shelves gathering dust, while people and elephants keep dying.
The committee report points out that the method of constructing the fences around the village proposed by Dr. Prithiviraj Fernando is a method that has been successful at present and that it is important to obtain the financial contribution of the villagers for the maintenance of this fence and thereby motivating them to protect it.
– Second Report of the Committee on Public Accounts (COPA) for the First Session of the Ninth Parliament
Community-based fencing in Thanmannama[/caption]
The tolerance is still there, amongst most. Ask the communities most at risk of conflict and the majority will state that they do suffer. They seek a solution to the intrusion of wild elephants into their cultivations and homesteads, but without harming the elephants. In acknowledging that the elephant has a right to exist, their tolerance comes from knowledge. They understand that until the natural habitat of the elephant was encroached on, and their normal food and water sources destroyed or access to them blocked, there was no need for them to seek it in human cultivations and homesteads. They know that the true enemy is not the elephant or development, both of which this country desperately needs, but unplanned development.
At present, electric fences seem to be the best way of keeping elephants from moving between one place and another. These fences, however, have to be in the right places. Currently, there are enough electric fences in place to encircle the island three times over, and the DWC is asking for more. If the placement of the existing fences had been done correctly, on the boundaries that elephants relate to, then there should have been a dramatic reduction in human-elephant conflict. The reality is otherwise, with conflict increasing year on year with a corresponding rise in deaths.
Every life is precious
Many of the fences have been erected between DWC and Forest Department lands, with elephant habitat, and elephants, on both sides of them. Elephants travel in search of food and water. Block them from finding these essentials for their survival, they will seek it elsewhere – in human cultivations if needs be. Rather than erected in the ad hoc manner they are now, fences should be placed on ecological boundaries that are between the natural habitat of elephants and human cultivations and dwellings. It is this that will result in a dramatic reduction in conflict and thus the saving of lives.
In addition, the priority should be to protect human life – keep the people safe by placing fences around the villages and their cultivation. This would allow elephants to roam freely, as they once did, on their traditional ranges, with the inevitable reduction in conflict and the further saving of lives.
Tried and tested – it works
How do we know this? Because it has been tried and tested for many years now. In several parts of the country, Dr. Prithiviraj Fernando and the Centre for Conservation and Research (CCR), and others, have been piloting these schemes where human-elephant conflict is prevalent, and it works. The CCR has tested these methods in approximately 50 villages, and they have been 100% successful, as evidenced by the villagers’ comments.
An added advantage is that the fences are maintained by the people, the responsibility taken for the village and seasonal paddy field fences by the village communities and the local farmers’ associations, with each member paying a nominal fee for the costs involved. This is largely to create a sense of ownership by the communities.
This approach has been enshrined in the Cabinet-approved Policy for the Conservation of the Wild Elephant in Sri Lanka and in the National Action Plan drafted by a special committee appointed by H.E. the President to suggest measures for reducing the human-elephant conflict. Sadly, these rest on ministry shelves gathering dust, while people and elephants keep dying.
The committee report points out that the method of constructing the fences around the village proposed by Dr. Prithiviraj Fernando is a method that has been successful at present and that it is important to obtain the financial contribution of the villagers for the maintenance of this fence and thereby motivating them to protect it.
– Second Report of the Committee on Public Accounts (COPA) for the First Session of the Ninth Parliament