Human Elephant Conflict. Human Invasion Into The Wilderness - Essay Example

?Human Elephant Conflict Introduction Human-elephant conflict has become a major hurdle in the efforts to preserve the endangered animals. At present, wild elephants are present in nearly 50 nations around the world out of which 13 nations are in Asia and 37 in Africa. The article by Perera (2009) reported in Gajaha points out that most Asian nations are facing a drastic decline in the number of elephants. Similar trend was visible in Africa where the number of elephants declined from over 5 million to anywhere between 470,000 and 630,000 in a matter of hundred years. Thus, while the African elephants are termed ‘near threatened’ by the IUCN Red List, their Asian counterparts are classified ‘endangered’ by the Red List of the World Conservation Union (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 2011). However, before blaming humans for all these, it is necessary to look into the numbers of yearly manslaughter by elephants. According to Handwerk (2005), nearly 500 people are killed by elephants in a year, and the number is on rise year by year. Thus, it becomes evident that there is a conflict between men and elephants. This work looks into the various factors behind the conflict and the various effects of the conflict. Human invasion into the wilderness- the first reason It is pointed out by Nelson et al (2003) that one reason for increased elephant-human contact is the changes in land use. People started converting forest land for crop cultivation, settlement, and livestock grazing. The scholars make the observation that as human landscape reached such areas which were previously occupied by wildlife, there is higher chance for human-elephant conflict. Another point comes from Houghton (1994). He links the increased human-elephant interface with the trend of rural people to migrate to urban areas for employment and better living (ibid). As these people abandon their agricultural lands, the said lands become successional forests. These successional forests attract elephants. Yet another important observation comes from Sukumar (1990). The scholar reveals that the artificially created water sources have an important role in attracting elephants towards human settlements; and during times of drought, the water sources inside thick forests dry up (ibid). Then, elephants move towards the farmlands and settlements in the near vicinity for water. There are many more reasons in the pipeline. According to Lahm (1996), one reason is logging. As already noted, elephants live on secondary vegetation and successional forest. When logging occurs, the cleared land gives birth to thick growth of secondary vegetation. Thus, elephants tend to move to these newly developed areas for food. Yet another vital point as put forward by Kangwana (1995) is that increased human interference leads to the development of canals and cattle fences. When such developments block the natural migration routes of elephants, and when humans settle along the boundaries of such protected areas, the possibility of human-elephant conflict increases. Also, there is the revelation from Naughton et al (1999) that as the economic situation of people has improved, there is a considerable decline in tolerance to elephant presence. There is a totally different aspect of the issue explored by Anderson and Grove (1987). According to them, there are various factors that lead to the development of enmity in humans towards elephants (ibid). The most important factor is the development of national parks by governments. Such parks tend to exclude the local people making them feel alienated from the entire plan. As a result, the area becomes ‘frozen’ in a short while. So, the local people start resenting the wildlife, and dominant wild animals like elephants are the main victims of this hostile attitude. The scholars argue that this resentment is exacerbated by the feeling that the animals have access to such political, economic, and land advantages which are inaccessible for the native people (ibid). Yeager and Miller (1980) point towards a defect in the planning by governments. It is pointed out by the scholars that many a times; governments allow people farmlands in areas which were previously elephant habitats; and such areas get further disturbed when people cut trees for farming and other purposes, which often takes place within the boundaries of national parks (ibid). Thus, elephants which already live in a confined habitat get further pressurised to live on even reduced resources. The consequence is regular conflict between humans and elephants. A perfect example of this situation is provided by Hart & O’Connell (1998). They describe the situation in the Amboseli National Park in Kenya. There, Maasai people graze their cattle within the boundaries of the national park. As a result, competition for natural resources including trees, vegetation, and water is very common. When boreholes were introduced to reduce water crisis, the situation worsened as both the animals and humans came to use the same water sources (ibid). Similarly, Rodwell et al (1995) report the way nearly 5000 elephants roam the East Caprivi region of Namibia fighting with the local people for food, space and water sources. In fact, there is a negative correlation between human population and elephant population as Parker & Graham (1989) argue. It is evident from their study that while human population increases, the number of elephants decreases (ibid). However, this correlation is not direct; but indirect. That means, when there is an increase in human population, the use of land increases which leads to a decline in the availability of natural resources to elephants. The result is a decline in elephant numbers. Supporting this argument, Hoare & Toit (1999) come up with an explanation based on the threshold hypothesis. According to them, when human density reaches a threshold of nearly 15.6 persons/square kilometer, the balance between farmland and natural habitat is lost (ibid). From this point onwards, the number of elephants starts declining sharply. Admittedly, this decline is not solely because of killings but because elephants are forced to look for other undisturbed habitats. Another important area that is to be explored is the impact of tourism on elephants. The TED Case study (Number 194) looks into the impact of Kenya Tourism on elephants. The study reveals that animal patterns are severely disturbed by tourism in remote areas. First of all, the invasion of tourists results in the introduction of newer viruses and bacteria that are not known to the local fauna. A result is newer infections and diseases. The second issue is the necessary constructions to support tourism. As hotels, highways, power supply and power stations are developed, the topography or the area adjacent to the parks gets seriously damaged. Admittedly, the nature of the tourism is an important factor. Most of the time, it is noticed that during safaris, tourist buses carelessly move over grasslands in the effort to get close-ups. This unwanted destruction of grassland has a negative impact on the feedstock of animals. The study reveals that as a result of such careless tourism development, the number of elephants and rhinos declined by 70& and 90% respectively in Kenya in a matter of a decade (TED Case Studies, 2000). Elephants and the ecology At this juncture, it seems unjustifiable to leave the ecological role of elephants unexplored. From the study of Owen-Smith (1988), it becomes evident that elephants have a very important role in maintaining the fitness of the environment. To illustrate, it is pointed out by the scholars that while feeding, elephants uproot, break, or knock over trees (ibid). Thus, as they remove the trees and clear the area, there is the growth of secondary vegetation which is full of shrubs ad grasses. In fact, this foliage is very necessary for small herbivorous animals to survive. In the opinion of Botkin et al (1981), this process is linked to the recycling of nutrients too. Evidently, big trees are capable of storing nutrients for prolonged periods of times as their life is longer. However, as these trees are uprooted and broken by elephants, the nutrients get recycled and become useful for consumption by other animals (ibid). The study by Western (1989) has made it clear that both increase and decrease in the number of elephants in an area can have adverse impact on the quality of the ecology. In both the cases, the result is simplified savanna vegetation with reduced biodiversity. To illustrate, in the Amboseli basin of Kenya, the areas with either low or high density of elephants witness fewer plant species than other areas with moderate densities (ibid). It is noted that in areas with low densities of elephants, big yellow-barked acacia is the dominant species. As a result, the secondary vegetation or the understory plants do not get adequate light or space for survival. So, only certain shade tolerant plants manage to survive. However, if the number of elephants is adequate, enough number of trees will be destroyed providing enough light and space for other species to survive. Also, it has been proved that elephants are helpful in preventing wood invasion into savannas and dry forest ecosystems. Thus, it becomes evident that when the density of elephants is appropriate, the herbaceous layer becomes productive and varied, which is very necessary for the survival of other vertebrates like bongo, buffalo, bush pigs, duiker, forest hogs, and gorillas. It is reported by Kortlandt (1984) that the simplified forests in Central Congo Basin are the result of the extermination of elephants. Another important role of elephants appears in the form of seed dispersal agents as identified by scholars like Alexandre (1978). It is found by the scholar that acacia seeds will germinate more quickly if dispersed through elephant dung (ibid). It was found that in the Tai Forest and Ivory Coast, the loss of elephants resulted in significant loss in the number of species. The consequences of human-elephant conflict The very first effect of this conflict is crop raiding. According to the information available from Distefano (2004), Human-wildlife conflict worldwide (notes), in Bhadra Tiger Reserve in India, the damage to crops caused by elephants amounts to 14% of the total annual production. In addition, in Simao, China, 28-48 % of community annual income is lost due to crop and property damage caused by elephants. In fact, the problem of crop raiding is caused by elephants which extend their range into human-inhabited regions. However, once they reach human inhabited areas, the destruction is not limited to eating cultivated crops (Hoare 1999b). They also damage water installations, food storages, village structures, and kill or injure people. It is pointed out by Mosojane (2004) that people near forests, protected areas, migration routes, and water sources suffer more damage due to crop raid than other areas do. It is observed in NRP (2007) that elephants are highly capable of identifying the dangers involved in going deep into the farmlands. So, they often raid along the boundaries rather than going deep into farming areas (Natural Resources and People, 2007). This point is supported by the revelation that 90% of the crop damage by elephants occur within an area of 200 meters. Nchanji & Lawson (1998) studied certain villages in close proximity to the Banyang-Mbo wildlife sanctuary in Cameroon. It was found that the elephants were specifically targeting fields and villages which are very close to the sanctuary or which contain such vegetation that attracts elephants (ibid). There are certain other interesting aspects too. First of al, it is revealed by Osborn (1998) that as cultivated vegetation contains more minerals and protein than forest vegetation. That means it is likely that elephants are prompted to eat cultivated crops in order to supplement their nutrient intake. This is so because according to the scholar, as optimal foraging theory points out, animals try to take maximum nutrients depending on availability (ibid). Almost in the same line, it is pointed out by Omondi (1995) that the secondary chemical compounds in crops may also attract elephants to cultivated lands. Thus, the analysis proves that elephant crop-raids are highly localised in nature. That means only those villages which lie very close to or within the protected areas are often targeted by elephants. So, one can claim that it is the lack of space and resources that makes elephants reach human inhabited areas. Whatever the reason may be, it is found by Naughton-Treves (1998) that such raids by elephants make the local people resent the presence of animals. Farmers usually get frustrated because they do not have sufficient options to repel the elephants. In addition, as Carter (1997) points out, people are moving towards urban areas for better living and employment. As traditional kin networks and communal farming have vanished, the agricultural lands are kept unguarded. As a result, elephants get better opportunities to roam the fields. Admittedly, the economic impact of such raiding is disastrous for small farmers. The farmers who hold small pieces of land; often less than 5 ha, are unable to leave enough area which will act as a buffer from wildlife. Also, they do not have enough land to hire guards for their land. However, the study by people like Hawkes (1991) reveal that the problem of crop raiding by elephants is a problem of lesser intensity as compared to the raids by rodents and birds. Secondly, there is the revelation that two-thirds of the total crop damage is caused by livestock. That means, the attitude of people towards elephants is the main reason that makes people exaggerate the situation. Human deaths and injuries Though the number is not so large, yet in India alone, the number of people killed by elephants in a year is nearly 300. (World Wildlife Fund, 2012). The total number around the world comes to 500. In addition is the innumerous injuries caused by elephants. Also, the number of artificial installations destroyed by elephants too often goes unnoticed. However, collectively, they become a great issue. Elephant deaths However, a look into the toll of elephants reveals that conflict has more impact on elephants. To illustrate, Bist (2002) reports that in India, nearly 200 elephants die in a year because of man-made reasons. Out of the 200, 120 were victims of poaching, 25 were poisoned, 20 succumbed to cattle-born diseases, 16 died of electrocution, 10 were hit by trains, and the last 10 were the victims of other unknown reasons (ibid). It becomes evident that nearly one-third of the total deaths were the direct result of human-elephant conflict. Similarly, there is the report that in Sumatra, poisoning of elephants is very common. In 1996, 12 elephants were poisoned to death and in 2002, the number was 17. Similarly, as Mike (2001) reports, in Kenya, 107 elephants were killed by game wardens as the last resort in the year 1996. Thus, it becomes evident that the conflict takes the lives of many elephants as a result of retaliatory measures. Impact on the environment From the analysis, it becomes evident that when there is human-elephant conflict, not only humans and elephants suffer, but the whole ecology is threatened. First of all, when there is a decline in the number of elephants, the forest ecology becomes simplified and fragile. As Western (1989) noted, a decrease in the number of elephants is associated with decreased dispersion of certain plant species. Also, it means reduced felling and destruction of trees to open up enough space for secondary growth which is necessary for many herbivorous species to survive (ibid). Secondly, it reduces the recycling of nutrients. An increase in the number of elephants in a particular area too is troublesome. When it happens, natural resources easily dry up and elephants reach human settlements for resources. Otherwise, the elephants move to other undisturbed areas and the higher density of elephants there will cause an imbalance in the ecology there. Conclusion In total, it is evident that it is not possible to strike a balance between the needs of humans and elephants when human population is on rise. Increased population means increased encroachment to the forestland, and that again means increased conflict with elephants. However, the conflict has dire consequences not only on humans and elephants but also on all species and the entire ecology as elephants have an important ecological role. References Alexandre, DY., 1978. Le role disseminateur des elephants en foret de Tai, Cote d Ivoire, Revue d’Ecologie, 34, pp.335-350. Anderson, D & Grove, R., 1987. Conservation in Africa: People, policies and practice, Experimental Agriculture, USA: Cambridge University Press. Bell, RHV., 1984. The man-animal interface: an assessment of crop damage and wildlife control, Conservation and Wildlife Management in Africa, p.387-416. Bist, SS., 2002. An overview of elephant conservation in India, The Indian Forester, 128, p. 127. Botkin, DB, Mellilo, JM., Wu, LSY., 1981. How ecosystem processes are linked to large mammal population dynamics, Dynamics of large mammal populations, pp. 373-387. Carter, MR., 1997. Environment, technology, and the social articulation of risk in West African agriculture, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 45(3), p. 558. Crawley, M., 2001. Kenya mounts a game plan to cut elephant counts, The Christian Science Monitor, [Online] Available at: [Accessed 02 April 2012]. Distefano., 2004. Human-wildlife conflict worldwide Zang and Wang (2003), Biological Conservation, 112, pp. 453-459. Handwerk, B., 2005. Elephants attack as humans turn up the pressure, National Geographic News, [Online] Available at: [Accessed 02 April 2012]. Hart, LA & O’Connel, CE., 1998. Human conflict with African and Asian elephants and associated conservation dilemmas, Center for Animals in Society in the School of Veterinary Medicine and Ecology Graduate Group, pp.1-14, [Online] Available at: < http://web.mac.com/adelvarghese/Site/Economic_Development:_Basic_Course_files/hart-oconnell.pdf > [Accessed 02 April 2012]. Hawkes, RK., 1991. Crop and livestock loses to wild animals in the Bulilimamangwe Natural Resources Management Project Area, Harare: University of Zimbabwe. Hoare, RE., 1999. Determinants of human-elephant conflict in a land-use mosaic, Journal of Applied Ecology, 36(5), pp. 689- 700. Hoare, RE & Toit, JD., 1999. Coexistence between people and elephants in African savannas, Conservation Biology, 13(3), pp. 633-639. Houghton, RA., 1994. The worldwide extent of land-use change, Bioscience, 44(5), p. 30-313. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources., 2011. The IUCN red list of threatened species, Red List, [Online] Available at: [Accessed 02 April 2012]. Kangwana, K., 1995. Human–elephant conflict; the challenge ahead. Pachyderm, 19, pp.11–14. Kortlandt, A., 1984. Vegetation research and the bulldozer herbivores' in tropical Africa. In AC. Chadwick & SL. Sutton, eds., Tropical Rain Forest. Ecology and Management, Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. Lahm, S., 1996. A nation wide-survey of crop raiding by elephants and other species in Gabon, Pachyderm, 21, pp. 69-77. Mosojane, S. 2004. Human-elephant conflict along the Okavango Panhandle in northern Botswana: MSc Thesis, Department of Zoology and Entomology: University of Pretoria. Natural Resources and People (NRP)., 2007. Okavango Delta Management Plan, Final Report for the Department of Wildlife and Natural Parks, Gaborone, Botswana, p. 8. Naughton-Treves, L., 1998. Predicting patterns of crop damage by wildlife around Kibale National Park, Uganda, Conservation Biology, 12(1), pp. 156-168. Nchanji, AC & Lawson, DP., 1998. A survey of elephant crop damage around the Banyang-Mbo Wildlife Sanctuary, 1993-1996, Cameroon Biodiversity Project and Wildlife Conservation Society, Yaounde, Cameroon. Nelson, A, Bidwell, P & Sillero-Zubiri, C., 2003. A review of human-elephant conflict management strategies, Oxford University: People and Wildlife Initiative, [Online] Available at: < http://www.peopleandwildlife.org.uk/crmanuals/Human-ElephantConflictP&WManual.pdf> [Accessed 02 April 2012]. Omondi, POM., 1995. Chemical Composition of Preferred and Non-Preferred Elephant Food Plants n Mt. Kenya Forest Reserve, Kenya, MSc Thesis, UK: University of Reading. Osborn, FV., 1998. Ecology of Crop Raiding Elephants in Zimbabwe, PhD Dissertation, USA: University of Cambridge. Owen-Smith, RN., 1988. Megaherbivores: The influence of very large body size on ecology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Parker, ISC, Graham, AD., 1989, Elephant decline: downward trends in African elephant distribution and numbers, Parts I and II, International Journal of Environmental Studies, 34, pp. 3- 288. Perera, BMAO., 2009. The Human-Eeephant con?ict: A Review of Current Status and Mitigation Methods, Gujaha, 30, pp.41-51. Rodwell, TC, Tagg, J & Grobler, M., 1995. Wildlife Resources in the Caprivi, Namibia: The results of an aerial census in 1994 and comparisons with past surveys, Directorate of Environmental Affairs: Research Discussion Paper, (9), [Online] Available at: [Accessed 02 April 2012]. Sukumarm R., 1993. The Asian elephant: Ecology Management, USA: Cambridge University Press. TED Case Studies., 2000. Kenya tourism and elephants (Kenya case), (194), [Online] Available at: [Accessed 02 April 2012]. Yeager, R. & Miller, NN., 1986. Wildlife, Wild Death: Land Use and Survival in Eastern Africa, New York: State University of New York Press. Western, D., 1989. The ecological role of elephants in Africa, Pachyderm, 12, pp. 42-45. World Wildlife Fund., 2012. Asian elephants: Threats, [Online] Available at: [Accessed 02 April 2012]. Read More