Archive for the ‘Human Elephant Conflict’ Category

Minneriya gathering may turn sour for elephants

January 29, 2017

 

At Moragahakanda, a dam was built at Elahara across the Amban Ganga to create a reservoir. A second dam will be built at Pallegama in Matale across Kalu Ganga to create the Kalu Ganga reservoir. These two larger water bodies are about 10 kilometres apart and will be linked by a tunnel.

The project aims to provide water for drinking and irrigation for areas in Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa and Trincomalee districts. The project also includes a hydropower plant to generate 25 megawatts of electricity.

About 3,500 families had to be resettled due to the project.

It is estimated that 70 per cent of the area affected by the project is forested land and it is believed that the conflicts between elephants and humans will increase. As the project aims to take water to Rajarata, tanks like Minneriya will remain filled during the dry season that lasts from July to about November. Minneriya National Park is famous for being the gathering place of large numbers of elephants every year between June and September. Environmentalists say that Minneriya being filled would be detrimental to the large herds of elephants that come feed on the lush grass growing on the plains in the dry season.

NOTE:

During Workshop on the Policy for the Conservation and Management of Wild Elephants organized by WNPS on 24th January, the repercussions of the plan to keep the Minneriya Tank at spill level throughout the year from recently commissioned Moragahakanda project was highlighted. Herewith I’m sharing my past articles written on the same to renew the debate..!!

* “Is it too much ‘Water for Elephants’..?” (08.05.2011)
http://www.sundaytimes.lk/110508/News/nws_20.html

..sections of following articles also highlighted the issue.

* “Don’t leave conservation solely to Wildlife Dept: Former DG Pilapitiya” (25.09.2016)
http://www.sundaytimes.lk/…/dont-leave-conservation-solely-…

* Minneriya gathering may turn sour for elephants (22.01.2017)
http://www.sundaytimes.lk/…/small-creatures-of-moragahakand…

 Small creatures of Moragahakanda get a helping hand

Pix by Kanchana Kumara

Operations to rescue and relocate small wild creatures trapped by the waters of the Moragahakanda reservoir are continuing.

Filling of water at the reservoir began on January 11. Department of Wildlife Conservation officers with support from volunteers began rescuing wildlife species that had been trapped by the rising waters.

“Giant squirrels, squirrels, wild cats, reptiles, lizards, monitor lizards and snakes top the list of animals that we rescued,” says Wildlife Department’s chief veterinary surgeon, Dr Tharaka Prasad who led the rescue.

These operations are sometimes risky. Video footage show occasions when frightened animals could endanger rescuers. Dr Prasad said rescued animals were released into nearby forested areas that will not be affected by the waters.

He said rescuers had so far not seen any large animals such as deer, wild boar, and elephants. He believes large animals have already moved to safer ground. The filling of the reservoir has created 22 small islands which could become refuges for animals.

Earlier, a team lead by the IUCN Sri Lanka (International Union of Conservation of Nature) carried out animal rescues in the area. IUCN Sri Lanka’s Sampath Goonatilake who participated in the operations said a number of plant species that are important and threatened were translocated. The team had also relocated some freshwater fish.

According to IUCN, 80 animal species and 202 different plant species were identified from the affected area. The operation translocated 916 plants belonging to 58 species and a total of 2,414 animals belonging to 46 faunal species (fish and other species) according to IUCN. It also states that monitoring reveals an 84 per cent survival rate of transplanted plant species.

Dr Prasad of the Wildlife Department, said officials will account for the animals saved once the rescue is complete.

Published on SundayTimes on 22.01.2017 http://www.sundaytimes.lk/170122/news/small-creatures-of-moragahakanda-get-a-helping-hand-225706.html

Budget allocates Rs 4,000 million to Environment sector

December 1, 2015

budget

Budget 2016 has an allocation of Rs 4,000 million for the environment sector for three years, to resolve the human-elephant conflict and conserve Sri Lanka’s rich biodiversity.

The Sunday Times learns that the Government will seek these additional funds through a World Bank project interest-free loan of US$ 30 million, which did not materialise during the previous regime.

This 5-year initiative called ‘Eco-system Conservation & Management Project’ is to improve the management and stewardship of Sri Lanka’s sensitive ecosystems in selected locations.

Expectations among environmentalists are high that it will enhance conservation and bring benefits to the people.

A large portion of the project’s funding is to initiate innovative programmes that would reduce human-wildlife conflict through co-existence, while enhancing the management of Protected Areas for both conservation as well as nature-based tourism,

Another important component of the project is to strengthen the institutional capacity of the Forest Dept and Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC).

Currently, more than half of DWC’s budget goes to mitigate human-elephant conflict (HEC), which environmentalists insist is also important, while action is also being taken to protect other threatened species as well, an area the project also expects to shed some light on.

Environmentalists had high hopes for this project in 2011 when, at its final stages, the then Finance Ministry Secretary P.B. Jayasundara reportedly wanted drastic changes to the project which would have affected the project’s sustainability in the long run.

The World Bank felt it would compromise the project’s very aims of finding lasting solutions to conservation issues, and withdrew the project. Several key conservation groups wrote to the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa to intervene and prevent unnecessary influence on the project, but to no avail.

The Sunday Times learns that the new Government had, had several rounds of talks with the World Bank to revive this project, and a few weeks back had submitted an official request seeking same.

Reliable sources indicate the signs are positive and the inclusion of a Rs 4,000 million commitment for the Environmental Sector is a sign that the Government is confident of securing this project, whose budget has now increased to US$ 40 million.

Published on SundayTimes on 22.11.2015 http://www.sundaytimes.lk/151122/news/eco-friendly-budget-allocates-wb-aided-rs-4000-million-to-environment-sector-172527.html 

..in search of solution for Human Elephant Conflict

September 20, 2015
DWC concerns should be welfare of jumbos, says top elephant researcher – Dr.Prithiviraj Fernando 

With the new Government’s manifesto promising a solution to the human elephant conflict, the new Wildlife Minister Gamini Jayawickrema Perera says he will treat it as a priority, calling for a report by Tuesday.

Dr.Prithiviraj Fernando

Many blame Wildlife Officers for not providing a viable solution to the problem. However, the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC) alone cannot provide a solution, points out Sri Lanka’s foremost elephant researcher Dr. Prithiviraj Fernando.

The solution for the HEC can only be brought about by the main stake holders of this issue – the people affected by the conflict itself – becoming the main players in its mitigation.

Everyone expects the DWC to act, but it does not have the network, capacity, access to funding or the relationship with people, required to effectively manage a problem that has worsened in many parts of the country.

Instead the people affected, together with agencies responsible for the people’s welfare and governance and development should be the main players in finding a solution, says Dr. Fernando.

The main concern and responsibility of the DWC should be the welfare of the elephants, he asserts.

While over 200 elephants fall victim annually, pushing them to ‘endangered’ status, about 70 human lives are lost due to elephant attacks. However, as much as 80% of these deaths are preventable, emphasises Dr. Fernando, taking the Samagipura incident, where a provincial journalist was killed, as an example.

In each incident there are two parties involved – the human being and an elephant. As an elephant cannot be made to understand the problem or to look for a solution, it is the human who should be responsible.

Housing scheme in elephant territory - intensifying the conflict

A housing scheme in elephant territory – intensifying the conflict

Similarly in cases of crop raiding or destruction of houses, appropriate steps should be taken to prevent such occurrences. If crops are cultivated in an area where elephants roam, they will raid the crops unless preventive measures are taken.

Many people store paddy in their houses, resulting in the elephants breaking into their houses. The Government can assist people to construct protective fences or give priority to buying paddy from areas at risk.

Electric fences have been the traditional solution to the problem, but other alternatives have been used such as beehives, palmyrah fences and spiky lime to keep elephants away from human settlements and crops. However, these take up a lot of effort and resources or have limited success.

Hence Dr. Fernando thinks properly established electric fences are still the most effective way to keep elephants at a distance. However, most fences are erected demarcating protected areas such as National Parks managed by the DWC, while in many places the other side of the fence is Forest Department land.

Such inappropriate use of fences results in fences inside forests with elephants on both sides of the fence. Such fences are difficult to maintain, communities cannot and will not play a part in maintaining them and very soon they become non-functional.

Instead, human settlements and permanent cultivations should be protected by fences and people who are benefited by such fences need to take the responsibility for maintaining them.

Hambantota which experienced rapid development under the previous government is elephant country. With assistance of radio collars, Dr. Prithiviraj’s team in collaboration with the Department of Wildlife Conservation identified the area that is critical for elephants.

These findings were taken into consideration in the Strategic Environmental Assessment conducted under the auspices of the Urban Development Authority and the Central Environmental Authority.

The zoning plan developed under the Strategic Environmental Assessment identified the areas suitable for development, and demarcated the area that was critical for elephants as a Managed Elephant Range (MER) so humans and elephants can co-exist together in the Greater Hambantota area with little conflict. But this plan was not implemented as Dr.Fernando said that there are lots of unplanned developments disregarding the zoning plan and continued encroachment for cultivation and settlements in the MER area.

The elephant expert also repeated that translocation or elephant drives would not solve the HEC. Even establishing elephant corridors will have limited success, if implemented without obtaining actual data of elephant movement in an area.

The concept that elephants constantly migrate from one forest to another covering large areas is an outdated concept that belongs to the colonial era, whereas modern research has shown that elephants in Sri Lanka do not migrate long distances but have limited home ranges of 50-500 square km in extent, to which they show a high level of attachment.

Dr. Fernando and the team were the pioneers of observing elephant movements using satellite collars that proved Sri Lankan elephants are not migratory. However, within a home range there are places or routes that elephants use to cross from one area to another or to cross a main road etc. and these need to be established as ‘Elephant Corridors’.

Blocking of such ‘corridors’ by development or encroachment causes increase in HEC as elephants then have to cross in spite of the development or through alternative routes, which brings them into conflict with people. So Dr. Fernando suggests more research to understand elephant movement patterns before establishing these corridors.

Meanwhile Sri Lanka already formulated a National Policy for Elephant Management and Conservation in 2006 with consultation of experts in the field and the participation of all the relevant line agencies, led by the Department of Wildlife Conservation.

Many see this as comprehensive enough to provide sound suggestions with a scientific base to address the HEC and elephant conservation. However, this remains only a document, as it was not implemented.

So without reinventing the wheel, updating this National Policy, which is now a decade old and looking at addressing the issue on a scientific footing would be the thing to do, says the elephant expert.

Finding why the National Policy for Elephant Management was not implemented too should be a priority, as otherwise, new efforts too will end up in the ‘hamas pettiya’.

Published on 20.09.2015 on SundayTimes http://www.sundaytimes.lk/150920/news/solution-to-man-beast-conflict-lies-with-stakeholderstop-researcher-164878.html

Elephant on Mattala Road - a frequent encounter (c) Dr.Prithiviraj Fernando

Elephant on Mattala Road – a frequent encounter (c) Dr.Prithiviraj Fernando

Human Elephant Conflict – should all blame DWC..?

September 13, 2015

Last week, provincial journalist Priyantha Ratnayake was killed by a wild elephant while he was filming the beast that came to a village. Nearly 50 human deaths are reported annually as a result of intensified Human Elephant Conflict (HEC). Prime responsibility of taking care of the Elephants is with the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC). But can they solve the issue of HEC on their own..? Should all the blames goes to DWC..?? 

This is my article written on 2011 about the issue aftermath of a protest by villagers over someone got killed by a wild elephant. http://www.sundaytimes.lk/110731/News/nws_18.html 

Villagers block junction demanding solution to Human-Elephant Conflict

Short-term elephant drives not the answer say conservationists adding that villagers must cooperate more with Wildlife Dept. – By Malaka Rodrigo
Residents of the area blocked Palagala junction last week, demanding a solution for their Human-Elephant Conflict (HEC) issue. About 1,500 villagers gathered at this junction on July 20, protesting the death in the last two months of 7 villagers killed by elephants, according to media reports. Traffic from Kekirawa, Galewela and Mahawa was blocked, causing severe inconvenience to the public. The Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC) had to assure the villagers that they would relocate the troublesome jumbos and for the protesting villagers to disperse.

Protesting villagers. Pic by Kanchana Kumara Ariyadasa

This was not the first time villagers blocked roads in protest. It is now becoming a common occurrence to bring a victim’s body to the road or, to the Wildlife Field Office, demanding a remedy to their life-threatening issue.

Apparently, the Wildlife officers’ immediate solution is relocation of the elephant. But elephant expert Dr. Prithiviraj Fernando points out that the present form of mitigating the HEC is very much from the human perspective, and it only worsens the problem.

In the long term, it is detrimental to the very people it is meant to protect. He emphasises that people and politicians need to understand that translocation or elephant drives are not long term solutions.

Experts also point out that the DWC cannot be alone held responsible for the HEC. HEC is a very complex issue with multiple causes fuelling it, resulting in the annual loss of at least 200 elephants and 50 people.

Even though scientific evidence clearly indicates that translocations or elephant drives don’t work, the DWC opts for the easy way out, when political pressure and people pressure override scientific evidence.

Manori Gunawardena, another elephant conservationist also points out that elephant management decisions such as drives are politicized, and therefore, will not mitigate the conflict in the long term.
The DWC usually engages in HECs only after development plans have been drawn up. For example, the resettlement process in the North and East are under way, but elephant conservationists haven’t noticed any plan in place to minimise potential HECs.

Manori pointed out that the resettlement plan is based on land tenure, from as long ago as the early 80’s. But most of these ‘original places’ became jungles and now a rich wildlife habitat. People have no choice but to settle there, in dense forest, along with leopards, bears, elephants etc. Nowhere in the resettlement process do they address the elephant factor, complains Manori.

She points out that the DWC lacks the capacity to assist and implement conflict mitigation at this level with the development authorities, which will create another warfront of HEC in North. At a Stakeholder workshop on HEC, initiated by Born Free Foundation, it was pointed out that the protests were not regular and took place only if a next of kin was a victim.

It was pointed out that villagers were anything but cooperative of the DWC’s efforts at mitigation of HEC, preferring to sit it out on the sidelines, while expecting the DWC to go it alone. The villagers’ apathy towards cooperating with the DWC, even went to the extent of pilfering wires connected to the electrified fence, for its sale afterwards.

Sri Lanka has much scientific data to manage HEC, with the drafting of the National Policy for the Conservation and Management of wild elephants in Sri Lanka, several years ago. But this is yet to be implemented. Sri Lanka’s conservationists also had high hopes that the US$ 30 million World Bank (WB) loan for Ecosystem Conservation & Management Project would facilitate new conservation oriented programmes to alleviate HEC in the long term.

However, the Ministry of Finance informed the WB that this project did not address the development priorities of the government, and suggested modifications to the project design and the inclusion of additional activities which were not conservation oriented.

This resulted in the loan’s cancellation and with that went the efforts of the scientists. HEC needs a well-planned conservation approach, and if the Government and the policymakers are not willing to address the problem in conservation terms, these kind of protests are inevitable. The DWC alone will not be able to provide a solution.