Assessment of Human Elephant Conflicts and mitigation measures to resolve the conflict in Dharamapuri Forest Division, Tamil Nadu, India.

Transcription

1 Assessment of Human Elephant Conflicts and mitigation measures to resolve the conflict in Dharamapuri Forest Division, Tamil Nadu, India. MCT Phase IV Assignment V.Thirunavukarasu, IFS., District Forest Officer,Dharmapuri Tamil Nadu 2014

2 Assessment of Human Elephant Conflicts and mitigation measures to resolve the conflict in Dharamapuri Forest Division, Tamil Nadu, India. V.Thirunavukarasu, IFS., District Forest Officer, Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu Abstract Study on assessing human elephant conflict and mitigation measure shows that as such a conflict is not severe in this division unlike elsewhere in the state. But at the same time, increasing human and elephant population, this conflict will increase in future. Elephants are distributed in three forest ranges in this division namely Pennagaram, Palacode and Hogenakkal. Among three ranges Pennagaram affected more by elephants than other two ranges. An average of 25 acres of crops is being damaged by elephants in the division, study result shows that the elephants are frequently raiding crops only forest fringe and enclosure villages. Dharamapuri district is known for cultivation of dry crops such as Ragi (38%) and Sugarcane (16%) as damaged higher than the other crops. X 2 test was preformed to look at the significance of crops preferred by elephants, it shows that there is significant difference in the crop preferred by elephants (χ 2 = 5.00, df=4.p=.287), than the availability of crops. The mitigating measures (EPT, Solar fence) taken to prevent the crop damage by elephants are ineffective due to poor maintenance. Elephant is being intelligent animal it can easily habituated to any preventive measure taken by the department. So, effective management strategies required to prevent elephant entering to agricultural fields.

3 1. Introduction: Asian Elephant (Elephas maximus) is categorized as an endangered species in IUCN list 2009, struggling for their survival due to habitat loss and fragmentation. Due to these factors habitat become narrow patches in most of their range countries, which triggered in human elephant conflicts in most parts of their range. The major reason for the habitat loss and habitat fragmentation is the developmental activities taking places in the elephant habitat such as laying highways, railway tracks, constructing dams and forest being converted into commercial plantation like tea and coffee plantation and massive area under agricultural crops cultivation resulted both in habitat loss and habitat fragmentation which leads to Human elephant conflict. Habitat factors are important in determining the nature and extent of crop raiding by elephants; thus the reduction of natural habitat or its fragmentation may leave elephants with little choice but to seek a part of their forage needs from cultivated fields (Sukumar 1985b, 1989). Studies conducted in Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary and Rajaji National Park found that not all bulls raided crops despite their easy accessibility (Balasubramanian et al.1995, Williams et al. 2001). While crop-raiding bulls have larger home ranges (~ 400 km2) than other bulls ( km2), they eat crops in a restricted area within their home range and for only part of the year (Williams et al. 2001). Similarly in Sri Lanka, elephants that inhabit areas of high usage by humans had relatively larger home ranges (male: km 2 ; female: km 2 ) than those that did not (male: 53.6 km 2 ; female: 48.3 km 2 ) (Weerakoon et al. 2004). The chances of losing a part of a large home range to human endeavor is high (Williams et al. 2001), making it the most important trigger of conflict (Balasubramanian et al. 1995, Madhusudan & Mishra 2003). Dharamapuri forest division consists of four territorial ranges, namely Dharmapuri, Palacode, Pennagaram and Hogenakkal. Among these ranges Pennagaram, Palacode and Hogenakkal ranges have elephant population. As such in Dharamapuri forest division has not sever conflict division unlike Hosur division which is sever conflict area adjoining Dharamapuri Forest Division. This forest division is part of the Eastern ghats and Nilgiri elephant reserve. Here I am presenting the present status of Human Elephant Conflict in the Dharamapuri Forest Division with the following. Objectives: 1. To Assess the human-elephant conflict in Dharamapuri Forest Division 2. To assess the efficacy of preventive measure taken in the division

4 3. Management recommendation made to reduce the human-elephant conflict in the division 2. Study Area: Dharmapuri Forest division lies between north latitude 11 o 53 and 12 o 29 and east longitudes 77 o 40 and 78 o 17 covering an area of km 2. It occupies the entire Dharmapuri, Pennagaram and Palacode Taluks. This division is bounded on the north by Hosur Forest Division on the east by Harur Forest Division while on the west it is partly by Karnataka state with Cauvery river functioning as interstate boundary and partly by Hosur Forest Division (1280km 2 ). The division consists of four territorial ranges, viz. Dharmapuri, Palacode, Pennagaram and Hogenakkal (map.1). Among these ranges Pennagaram, Palacode and Hogenakkal ranges have elephant population, the estimated population of ~100 elephants, both Hosur and Dharamapuri divisions estimated population of ~350 elephants distributed 2056km 2. Already an area of 900km 2 in Hosur Forest division comprising four ranges was declared as Cauvery North wildlife sanctuary 3 months before to manage the elephant better. Five major forest types are available in this division viz. Dry Mixed Deciduous Forest, Deciduous Forest, Secondary Dry Deciduous Forest, Riverine Forest and Dry Thorn Forest. The exotic shrub such as Prosopis juliflora(along Chinnar River) and Lantana camara, has spread extensively throughout the forest areas. Besides the Asian Elephant, the other major mammals reported from the Hosur- Dharmapuri forests include the Panther (Panthera pardus), Gaur (Bos frontalis), Sambar Deer (Cervus unicolor), Spotted Deer (Axis axis), Barking deer (Muntiakus muntjak), Four-horned Antelope (Tetracerus quadricornis), Mouse Deer Tragulus meminna), Wild Dog (Cuon alpinus), Jackal (Canis auerus), Wild Boar (Sus scrofa), Sloth Bear (Melursus ursinus), Bonnet macaque (Macaca radiata), Hanuman Langur (Presbytis entellus), Striped Hyaena (Hyaena hyaena), Indian Porcupine (Hystrix indica), Slender Loris (Loris tardigradus), Small Indian Civet (Viverricula indica), Common Mongoose (Herpestes edwardsi) and Indian Hare (Lepus nigricollis). Due to the moderate climate and fertile soil, a rich variety of fruits and vegetables are cultivated in Hosur and Dharamapuri area. Ragi, minor millets and pulses are the major crops grown in the area, besides paddy, banana, sugarcane, cotton and groundnut with the major cropping season being September to March. Sericulture is also an important industry in the Krishnagiri area. Palacode is a major tomato cultivation area, while chillies are cultivated mainly at Pennagaram

5 Map.1. Showing the Dharamapuri Forest Division 3. Methods: Information of Human Elephant Conflicts were collected through village survey and existing information collected from the range office. Information such Name of the village, village proximity to forest periphery, types of crops, no. of animals raided crops and extent of damage was collected from the village survey. 4. Results: 4.1. Crop Damage Elephants raid crops only particular season (September November), of the crops cultivated Ragi (38.02%) and Sugar Cane (16.09%) suffered highest proportion of damage during 2012 and 2013 (Fig.1 and 2), mostly through feeding. The damage to Corn and Cotton was much less with only about 2% each crops of the total crop being affected by elephants

6 during the year 2012 and 2013 respectively. A χ 2 test was preformed to look at the significance of crops preferred by elephants, it shows that there is significant difference in the crop preferred by elephants (χ 2 = 5.00, df=4.p=0.287).of this elephant feeding accounted for about 60% - 80% of damage and rest was by trampling. Since elephants do not seem to be getting any nutritional advantage from these crops it is likely that raiding in these fields is mainly incidental. During the survey I found that herd of 3 animals and herd 6 animals and two bulls are more frequently raiding the crops. If they disturbed from one village they have moved to adjacent villages. Studies suggested that by eating crops elephants receive enormous gains from the highly nutritious plants. Among the three ranges crop raid recorded, Pennagram range was highest followed by Palacode and Hogenakkal ranges. Besides cropping pattern the proximity of crop fields close to the reserve forests in Pennagaram range. Fig.1. Crops damage by elephants between 2012 and Map.2. Showing the distribution of crop raid by elephants in the Dharamapuri Forest Division

7 Fig.2. Crop damaged by Elephants in Dharamapuri Forest Division 4.2. Compensation : In total 73 cases of crops damage and human injuries incidences were recorded between 2005 to 2013, the number of cases registered was high during and Total claim was Rs.3,94,450 between 2005 to 2013, of which was the highest compensation was given (Fig.3), four cases of human injuries caused by elephants during the crop raiding. One incident of man killed by elephants during , government paid the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. On the other hand in Hosur forest division, the human casualty is more compared to Dharamapuri Division. Fig.3. Compensation paid towards crop damage and human injuries during 2005 to 2013

8 4.3. Assessment of Human elephant conflict: In areas where humans and elephants coexist, human welfare is inversely related to elephant welfare. Ideally, it would be best for both species if the other were totally absent. However, there is a need to strike a balance between human welfare and elephant conservation and this is where mitigation strategies are helpful (IUCN 2006). Identifying what drives conflicts in an area is critical in determining how to resolve it. If the elephants opportunistically eat crops, the can be deflected by any of the short-term measures such as guarding and electric fencing. However, if they are forced to rely on crops for their survival, barriers are needed to stop them (Boominathan et al.2008) but if these are successful, the future of such elephants is threatened (Fernando et al. 2005). Alternatively, problem elephants need to be removed (Sukumar 1989). The choice of intervention should not only depend on effectiveness but also sustainability (Treves et al. 2006). Human elephant Conflict mitigation measures fall under two categories, the short-term ones that address the symptoms and the long-term solution that address the underlying causes (Boafo et al. 2004, Parker et al. 2007). However, targeting problem elephants and applying short-term conflict mitigation at the interface between expanding agriculture and diminishing elephant range will achieve only limited success (Hoare 1999, Parker et al. 2007) Driving of elephants: There were cases of driving the elephants from the conflict area (fringes) into interior forest within the home range of the elephants or stray elephants from the new location to their earlier habitat. Such measures are only temporary solutions as the same elephant can come back to the conflict location again Elephant Proof Trench EPT: EPT is an effective preventive measure to reduce human elephant conflict especially in dry areas (with people s co-operation), like Dharamapuri and Hosur. In total 152 km EPT were carried out in Palacode range (101), Pennagaram (9) and Hogenakkal (42) forest ranges. EPT is not possible hill terrain and places where river crossing. In Bikkanahalli beat, Chinnar river is crossing and digging EPT is not possible, elephants are crossing over the river and go to nearby crop field. Such areas need different management strategies to prevent elephant going to the village.

9 Fig.4 Elephant Proof Trenches Fig.5 Elephant proof Trench design 4.6. Electric fence: Electric fence, although an effective and successful protective measure, but they are expensive to install, require high maintenance and people who involved need some technical expertise. Local people involvement is very important to maintain the fence. In most case after the installation no one is looking after the fence therefore in most case it was failed. In Dharamapuri division 67.5km area was fenced with solar panel, but most of them are ineffective due to no proper maintenance. In some places the fence was broken by elephants, therefore proper maintenance is required if install the solar fence in the division.

10 Fig.6 Various designs of Solar Power fence 4.7. Creation of Water resources: The scientific study on the behavior of elephant reveals that the habitat utilization of these animals are not confined to forest alone, it also uses the buffer zone between forest and crop lands and in most cases if the crop lands are abetting forest it uses mostly. Apart from the use of these lands for food as mentioned in previous paragraphs, the animals came to these lands for drinking water purposes during lean season of summer. If we seal the boundaries of forest with solar fence or EPTs, it is inevitable on part of the wildlife manager to create water resources inside the forest to cater to the needs drinking water during summer. These measures include construction of percolation ponds, check dams, Water troughs supplying water through solar powered pumps, etc. Fig.7 Solar Power Water Trough

11 5. Discussion: Crop-raiding is the most wide-spread form of human - elephant conflict in most part of the elephant ranges. Besides, habitat fragmentation, loss of corridor and human competition for forest resources are the major reason for human elephant conflict in the elephant landscapes. Habitat factors are important in determining the nature and extent of crop raiding by elephants; thus the reduction of natural habitat or its fragmentation may leave elephants with little choice but to seek a part of their forage needs from cultivated fields (Sukumar 1985b, 1989). In this study we found that though there is a conflict in the division, it is very minimal but this will increase in future due to growing human population and elephant population as well. Three ranges were surveyed, among the three Pennagaram range was most affected area followed by Palacode and Hogenakkal ranges. Our survey shows that ten villages in Pennagaram range is affected by crops raiding of elephant. We have reason to believe that the elephant preferred crops were cultivated more in these range villages, which may attract elephant to raid more crops in Pennagaram range than other two ranges. According to local villagers one female herd, one male herd (3 individuals) and two bulls are frequently raiding the crops in these villages. Sukumar (1989) observed that solitary bulls try to minimize the risk by forming groups of 2 to 4 before entering cultivation in the Sathyamangalam Landscape. Lennin and Sukumar (2011) stated that in elephant habitats that are large, homogenous and clearly defined, crop-raiding is seasonal and mostly caused by bulls, however not all bulls raid crops. Among crop-raiding elephants, there may be those that opportunistically raid unprotected crops and those that are forced to depend on crops for their survival. In areas where land use is heterogeneous mosaic of agriculture and forest, elephants and humans share an undifferentiated landscape, and cropraiding by herd and bulls occurs throughout the year. Social organization, cognition, diet and home range influences how elephants use their habitat. Studies suggested that by eating crops more frequently and ranging farther than herds, bulls are at an increased risk of being injured or even killed by crop-guarding farmers. But when they succeed in eating crops, elephants receive enormous gains from the highly nutritious plants ( high-risk, high-gain ) (Sukumar & Gadgil 1988). In fact, some bulls appear to be disturbance-tolerant, as they were consistently found closer to settlements than females (Hoare 1999). In some areas bull elephants cause more damage than herds (Sukumar 1989, De Silva 1998, Fernando et al. 2005, Lahkar et al. 2007) whereas in others, herds cause more damage (Balasubramanian et al. 1995, Datye & Bhagwat 1995a, Smith & Kasiki 2000, Williams et al. 2001, Kumar et al. 2004, Fernando et al. 2005); in some parts of southern India this may merely reflect the paucity of adult bulls in the population as a

12 consequence of ivory poaching (Sukumar 2003). Studies conducted in Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary and Rajaji National Park found that not all bulls raided crops despite their easy accessibility (Balasubramanian et al. 1995, Williams et al. 2001). While crop-raiding bulls have larger home ranges (~ 400 km 2 ) than other bulls ( km 2 ), they eat crops in a restricted area within their home range and for only part of the year (Williams et al. 2001). Similarly in Sri Lanka, elephants that inhabit areas of high usage by humans had relatively larger home ranges (male: km2; female: km2) than those that did not (male: 53.6 km2; female: 48.3 km2) (Weerakoon et al. 2004). The chances of losing a part of a large home range to human endeavour is high (Williams et al. 2001), making it the most important trigger of conflict (Balasubramanian et al. 1995, Madhusudan & Mishra 2003). Fig.7 special structures in Nallas in EPT Many preventive measures have been taken to stop elephant entering to the crop field in the division most of them of ineffective due to lack of maintenance. We observed that most of the places EPT were closed by local people to enter their cattle inside the forest for grazing. Elephants are using that path to enter the crop field. Of 23 trenches examined in Karnataka, none were found to be functional and about half the crossing points had been created by people (Nath & Sukumar 1998). Even trenches used in combination with electric fences have been rendered ineffective by poor design, construction, and maintenance (Desai 2002). Similarly electric fence also ineffective due to no proper maintenance of fences in the division. Of 49 fences examined in West Bengal, only 12 were effective (Chowdhury et al. 1998), where as in Karnataka and Kerala, approximately 19 of 37 fences were functional (Nath & Sukumar 1998).

13 6. Conclusion: The Human Elephant conflict in Dharmapuri forest division even though is not very acute compared to other divisions in Tamil Nadu, the animals stray in to the crop lands for food and water. The food preference is predominantly Ragi. The mitigation measures includes solar power fence, driving of elephants, Elephant proof trenches, fodder development, removal of exotics and creation of sufficient water resources inside the forests. Therefore, it is recommended that local people cooperation is essential to maintain the barriers, these barriers could be managed through forming of EDCs in the conflict area would help to maintain the barriers. Awareness programme should be conducted in the conflict villages to change the people attitude towards elephant conservation. Key words: (EDCs) References: Elephant proof trench, Water trough, Solar power fence, Eco development committees Balasubramanian, M., N. Baskaran, S. Swaminathan and A.A. Desai Crop raiding by Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) in the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, South India. In: A Week with Elephants (J.C. Daniel and H.S. Datye, eds.), pp Bombay Natural History Society/Oxford University Press, Bombay. Chowdhury, S., M.A. Khalid, M. Roy, A.K. Singh and R.R. Singh Management of elephant populations in West Bengal for mitigating man-elephant conflicts. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, India. Daniel, J.C., A. Desai, A. Kumar and C. Sakthivel Evaluating population enumeration methods and human elephant conflict mitigation methods in Mudumalai Tiger Reserve, Tamil Nadu, India. Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai. Desai, A. A Design of human-elephant conflict mitigation strategy for the proposed Tesso Nilo Protected Area, and possible expansion of such strategy into the Tesso Nilo Conservation Landscape, and the Province of Riau. WWF-Indonesia, Draft, Jakarta, Indonesia. De Silva, M Status and conservation of the elephant (Elephas maximus) and the alleviation of man-elephant conflict in Sri Lanka. Gajah 19:1-68. Hoare, R.E. and J.T. du Toit Coexistence between people and elephants in African

14 savannas. Conservation Biology 13(3): Fernando, P Implications of socio-ecology and genetics on the conservation and management of the Sri Lankan elephant. In: A Week with Elephants (J.C. Daniel & H.S.Datye, eds.), pp Bombay Natural History Society/Oxford University Press, Bombay. Fernando, P., E. Wickramanayake, D. Weerakoon, L.K.A. Jayasinghe, M. Gunawardene and H.K. Janaka Perceptions and patterns of human-elephant conflict in old and new settlements in Sri Lanka: insights for mitigations and management. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: Johnsingh, A.J.T and A.C. Williams Elephant corridors in India: lessons for other elephant range countries. Oryx 33(3): Joshua, J. and A.J.T. Johnsingh Ranging patterns of elephants in Rajaji National Park: implications for reserve design. In: A Week with Elephants (J.C. Daniel and H.S. Datye, eds.), pp Bombay Natural History Society/Oxford University Press, Bombay. Kumar, M.A., D. Mudappa, T.R.S. Raman and M.D. Madhusudan The Elephant Hills: conservation of wild Asian elephants in a landscape of fragmented rainforests and plantations in the Anamalais, India. CERC Technical Report No. 10, Nature Conservation Foundation, Mysore, India. Lahkar, B.P., J.P. Das, N.K. Nath, S. Dey, N.Brahma and P.K. Sarma A study of habitat utilization patterns of Asian elephants Elephas maximus and current status of human elephant conflict in Manas National Park within Chirang-Ripu Elephant Reserve, Assam. Aaranyak, Guwahati, India. Lenin, J. and Sukumar, R Action plan for the mitigation of Elephant-Human Conflict in India. A Final Report submitted to USFWS. Madhusudan, M.D. and C. Mishra Why big, fierce animals are threatened: conserving large mammals in densely populated landscapes. In: Battles over Nature: the science and politics of conservation in India (M. Rangarajan and V. Saberwal, eds.), pp Permanent Black, New Delhi, India. Nath, C. D. and R. Sukumar Elephant-human conflict in Kodagu: southern India. Asian Elephant Research and Conservation Centre, Bangalore. Parker, G.E., F.V. Osborn, R.E. Hoare and L.S. Niskanen Human-elephant conflict mitigation - a training course for community based approaches in Africa: Participant's Manual. [Accessed January 22, 2008]. Sukumar, R. 1985a. Ecology and conservation of the Asian elephant in South India with special reference to the Chamarajnagar and Satyamangalam Forest Divisions. Report submitted to the AsESG/WWF - Project No Sukumar, R. 1985b. Ecology of the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) and its interaction with man in South India. Vol. 2. PhD Thesis, Centre for Ecological Studies, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.

15 Sukumar, R The Asian Elephant: ecology and management. Oxford University Press, Cambridge, UK. Sukumar, R The Living Elephants: evolutionary ecology, behavior and conservation. Oxford University Press, New York. Sukumar, R. and M. Gadgil Male-female differences in foraging on crops by Asian elephants. Animal Behaviour 36: Weerakoon, D.K., M.D. Gunawardene, H.K. Janaka, L.K.A. Jayasinghe, R.A.R. Perera, P.Fernando and E. Wickramanayake Ranging behaviour and habitat use of elephants in Sri Lanka. In: Endangered Elephants, past present & future. Proceedings of the Symposium on Human Elephant Relationships and Conflicts, Sri Lanka, September 2003 (J.Jayewardene, ed.), pp Biodiversity & Elephant Conservation Trust, Colombo