See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/226177868

Perceptions and Patterns of Human–elephant Conflict in Old and New

Settlements in Sri Lanka: Insights for Mitigation and Management

Article in Biodiversity and Conservation · September 2005

DOI: 10.1007/s10531-004-0216-z

CITATIONS READS

218 6,495

6 authors, including:

Prithiviraj Fernando Eric Wikramanayake

Centre for Conservation and Research World Wildlife Fund
102 PUBLICATIONS 2,574 CITATIONS 79 PUBLICATIONS 14,941 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Devaka Weerakoon Lakshika Jayasinghe

University of Colombo NSBM Green University
134 PUBLICATIONS 939 CITATIONS 30 PUBLICATIONS 624 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Eric Wikramanayake on 24 December 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Biodiversity and Conservation (2005) 14:2465–2481
DOI 10.1007/s10531-004-0216-z

Perceptions and patterns of human–elephant conflict

in old and new settlements in Sri Lanka: insights
for mitigation and management

PRITHIVIRAJ FERNANDO1,2,*, ERIC WIKRAMANAYAKE2,3,

DEVAKA WEERAKOON2,4, L.K.A. JAYASINGHE2,
MANORI GUNAWARDENE2 and H.K. JANAKA2
1
Wildlife Trust, New York USA; 2Centre for Conservation and Research, 35 Gunasekara Gardens,
Nawala Road, Rajagiriya, Sri Lanka; 3Conservation Science Program, World Wildlife Fund-US,
Washington, DC 20037, USA; 4University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka; *Author for corres-
pondence. 35, Gunasekara Gardens, Nawala Rd., Rajagiriya, Sri Lanka (e-mail: pf133@
columbia.edu; phone: (94)-11-2865708)

Received 16 July 2003; accepted in revised form 13 April 2004

Key words: Conservation, Elephants, Human–elephant conflict, Sri Lanka, Wildlife management

Abstract. Human–elephant conflict poses a major threat to elephants in many parts of Asia,
including Sri Lanka. We studied human–elephant conflict in two areas with contrasting scenarios of
landuse and conflict, Kahalle and Yala. Kahalle was developed and settled under the Mahaweli
irrigation project and the main agricultural practice was irrigated agriculture, with two annual
growing seasons. The area was a mosaic of settlements, agriculture, and small forest patches with ill
defined human- and elephant-use areas. Elephants ranged within the habitat mosaic year round,
occupying remnant forest patches and raiding adjacent crops at night. In contrast, Yala was
dominated by a large protected area complex, and the main agricultural methods were slash-and-
burn agriculture and rain-fed paddy cultivation. Human- and elephant-use areas were well defined
and segregated. The protected area provided elephants with a refuge and food during the rainy
season, when the single annual crop was grown. During the dry season, elephants moved into slash-
and-burn areas and utilized leftover crops and pioneer vegetation in fallow fields. The landuse
pattern and agricultural practices in Yala facilitated co-existence, whereas that in Kahalle led to year
round conflict. We suggest that areas managed according to traditional landuse practices should be
part of an elephant conservation strategy, where people and elephants have to share resources.

Introduction

Wildlife–human conflict is a major threat to the survival of many species. Such

conflict is of conservation and socio-economic significance, where potentially
dangerous species that in addition to depredating resources, threaten human
morbidity and mortality. Human–elephant conflict is a case in point. Elephants
are mega-herbivores and commonly raid crops, causing economic losses, and
death and injury to people (Sukumar 1989; Hoare 1995; O’Connell-Rodwell
et al. 2000). While ivory poaching is a major threat to some elephant popu-
lations in Africa, it is of lesser importance in Asia, as only male Asian elephants
carry tusks. Further, the frequency of tusked males varies among populations,
2466

with Sri Lanka having the lowest incidence, of 7% (Jayewardene 1994).

In contrast, with over two thirds of Asian elephant habitat in non-conservation
areas (Sukumar 1989), human–elephant conflict represents a widespread,
complex, and intractable challenge to conservation and is the major threat to
elephants across their range. Unprecedented human population growth in Asia
has caused increasing conversion of natural habitat to human dominated
landscapes, bringing elephants and humans into greater contact and conflict.
Confronted with the escalating human–elephant conflict, the historical respect
and reverence for elephants in Asian cultures and societies, is rapidly eroding.
People who have to contend with elephant depredation on a daily basis
increasingly perceive them as agricultural pests, an unwelcome burden, and a
threat to their survival and well being.
As a flagship-species, umbrella-species, and socially and culturally important
species, elephant conservation is of national importance in Sri Lanka. As one
of only three island populations (Santiapillai and Jackson 1990), a population
at the extreme of the species range, and a population with high genetic diversity
and distinctiveness (Fernando et al. 2000; Fleischer et al. 2001), Sri Lankan
elephants are a high priority for Asian elephant conservation. As the largest
terrestrial vertebrate in Asia, and a CITES appendix I listed species, conserving
the Asian elephant is a globally important conservation objective. Given the
unique situation of very high human and elephant densities, insights gained
in managing elephants in Sri Lanka can provide guidelines for the future
conservation of elephants across their range.

Elephants in Sri Lanka

Throughout history, the people of Sri Lanka have had a benevolent attitude
towards elephants, steeped in religious and socio-cultural traditions. In contrast
to areas such as Indochina, where human–elephant association has been more
tenuous, the close bonds in Sri Lanka have allowed co-existence of over
19,000,000 people and two to four thousand elephants (Santiapillai and Jackson
1990; Jayewardene 1994), in this island of 65,000 km2 . However, a human
population growth rate of 1.2% (Department of Census and Statistics 1986),
adds over 750 persons per day to the current population, necessitating increasing
conversion of elephant habitat to human-dominated landscapes. Most of this
conversion has occurred with little foresight or consideration of human-wildlife
issues. Thus, conflict between humans and elephants has escalated, threatening
the traditional values of tolerance and benevolence towards elephants.

Historical Perspective

For centuries elephants have occupied the dry-zone of Sri Lanka, which was
extensively forested till a few decades ago (Ishwaran 1993; Jayewardene
1993). During this period, the dry zone was mainly a ‘natural’ landscape with
 2467

high elephant- and low human-densities. The few people living in the region
practiced slash-and-burn agriculture (hereafter referred to by the local ter-
minology ‘chena’) and small-scale paddy farming, using water from minor
rain-fed reservoirs (Fernando 2000). The accelerated Mahaweli hydro-project
initiated in 1978, changed the dry-zone landscape significantly. The project
dammed and diverted the longest river in Sri Lanka, the Mahaweli, to irri-
gate the dry zone, transforming extensive areas into human dominated
landscapes (Hewavisenthi 1992). Under this project, large areas of forests
were cleared and brought under irrigated agriculture, cultivated by settlers
who migrated from other parts of the country under a trans-migration and
settlement program. Thus, a significant portion of former elephant habitat
was converted to agricultural lands in a period less than a decade. In order
to prevent conflict and to ‘save’ the elephants that ranged in areas developed
for agriculture, they were translocated into protected areas (PA) by elephant
drives and immobilization and transport. However, translocation has failed
to eliminate elephants from developed areas, and the continued presence of
elephants has led to high levels of conflict with humans. Consequently, the
human–elephant conflict has an overbearing influence on people’s lives in
many Mahaweli areas.
In contrast, in south–east Sri Lanka, a system of well established PA exist,
dominated by one of Sri Lanka’s, and Asia’s, oldest PA, the Yala National
Park. People have lived and farmed the area around the Yala National Park
for generations. While human densities have steadily increased over the past
few decades in this area, conflict between humans and elephants appeared to be
less intensive than in the Mahaweli areas.

Project Goals

In this study, we compare and contrast elephant behavior, landuse patterns,

and peoples’ perception and attitudes to the human–elephant conflict, in two
areas; Kahalle-Pallekele (hereafter Kahalle) in the Mahaweli project area in
north–central Sri Lanka and Yala, in south-east Sri Lanka. The insights from
this comparison provide valuable lessons for developing landscape-scale ele-
phant conservation and management strategies to mitigate human–elephant
conflict.

Methods

Study Areas

The study areas were selected centred on two research and conservation
projects conducted in the two areas: a community based resource manage-
ment project in Kahalle and an elephant ranging pattern and ecology study
2468

in Yala. Both areas were situated in the dry-zone of Sri Lanka (Figure 1).
The two areas were topographically and climatically similar with largely
level terrain interspersed with scattered granite masses rising up to 100 m,
and subject to distinct wet and dry seasons. The primary rainfall occurred
during the Northeast monsoon from October to January and a lesser
amount in March and April from inter-monsoonal rains. The drought
became severe from May to September when the South–west monsoon,
after releasing its moisture in the wet zone, swept across the dry zone as a
desiccating wind.
Sociologically, the two areas were different. The people in Kahalle were
recent settlers and were of diverse origins, hailing from many parts of the
country, while the people in Yala had lived there for many generations.

Figure 1. Map of Sri Lanka showing study areas, elephant distribution, Mahaweli development
areas and the Yala Protected Area.
 2469

Landuse

Landuse patterns were assessed by ground-truthing and updating 1:50,000

scale topography (Survey Department, Sri Lanka, 1984) and 1:100,000 scale
landuse maps (Survey Dept., Sri Lanka, 1987). A hand held GPS instrument
was used to locate positions during ground-truthing. The extent of different
habitat types was estimated by overlaying a dot matrix, enumerating the
number of dots that fell within each habitat and conversion to hectares. Field
visits were made to all major blocks of habitat types demarcated in topo-
graphic and landuse maps in the two study areas, and visually checked for
discrepancies.

Questionnaire Survey

A questionnaire survey was administered to 10% of households in Kahalle

(n = 162) and Yala (n = 122) by sampling every 10th house on householder
lists obtained from local administrative offices. The survey was designed to
obtain information on attitudes of villagers to elephant presence and crop
depredation, and to the onus of responsibility for mitigating the conflict.
Demographic and economic data of respondents was obtained concurrently.

Agricultural and Crop Depredation Patterns

Information on agricultural practices and crop depredation patterns was col-

lected through village interviews. Recently damaged fields were visited and
inspected to establish crop-depredation patterns. Elephant dung samples were
opportunistically collected and examined macroscopically to identify recog-
nizable crop material as an estimator of the prevalence of crop depredation.

Elephant Behavior and Ranging

Ranging patterns and behavioral information were collected from seven (4

females, 3 males) radio-collared elephants in the south-eastern region, and
eight (five females, three males) in the north–central region. Collared elephants
were located by homing-in (White and Garrot 1990) using a TELONICS H
antenna or triangulation with a five-element Yagi antenna. For triangulation,
nulls on either side of the transmitter beacon were estimated, the bearings
recorded by sighting with a hand held compass, and the azimuth calculated.
Locations were geo referenced using lat.–long. coordinates with a SONY(IPS-
76K), GPS unit. A minimum of 4 locations were obtained per animal per
month. Home ranges were estimated using the Minimum Convex Polygon
(MCP) method, excluding 5% of the outermost points (White and Garrot
2470

1990). Location data was analyzed with the CALHOME home range analysis
package (Kie et al. 1996).
Relation of home ranges to administrative areas was analyzed by plotting
MCP ranges on 1:50,000 topography sheets and estimating the area included in
each administrative category by overlaying a dot matrix. Temporal variation in
the use of areas was estimated by plotting all locations and assuming that the
number of locations falling within a particular area was directly proportional
to the time spent in that area. Information on elephant behavior and feeding
were collected opportunistically by direct observation.
To examine elephant use of chena areas in Yala, a 3 km2 study area was
demarcated, and 15 chena plots within it selected for monitoring. Chenas were
surveyed weekly to look for breaks in the perimeter fence (constructed by piling
up cleared scrub), and elephant sign such as dung and footprints. When a
break in the fence was observed, the inside of the chena was systematically
surveyed for elephant sign. Elephant sign was attributed to bulls or female
herds, based on footprint and dung bolus circumference. A dung bolus cir-
cumference greater than 55 cm or a foot print diameter greater than 38 cm was
taken to indicate an adult male. A dung bolus circumference less than 30 cm or
foot print diameter less than 25 cm were taken to indicate the presence of
juveniles hence a female herd.

Results

Landuse Patterns

The landscape in Kahalle was a heterogeneous mosaic of landuses dominated

by past and present agriculture and its influence (Figure 2a). Of the approxi-
mately 8300 ha study area, 17% consisted of irrigated paddy cultivation, 9%
rain-fed paddy cultivation, 31% home gardens, 2% chena, 35% forest/scrub,
and 6% freshwater reservoirs. There were no large PA or large extents
(>100 km2 ) of natural forest. Instead, patches of forest and scrub were inter-
spersed with human-use areas throughout the landscape. Thus, human- and
elephant-use areas were not clearly defined or segregated.
In Yala, human- and elephant-use areas were better defined and segregated,
with three distinct landuse zones (Figure 2b). A zone of human habitation
consisting of the townships of Kirinda, Yodakandiya and Tissamaharama,
with home gardens and permanent paddy cultivation, lay to the south–west.
Centrally lay an unofficial ‘buffer zone’, comprising of chena fields, small-scale
paddy-land and scrub forest. Most farmers who cultivated in this zone lived in
the townships, but built and occupied temporary huts in the chena fields during
the growing season. The third zone occupied the eastern sector and was con-
tiguous with a protected area complex of over 1000 km2 that consisted of
several national parks, sanctuaries and nature reserves (Ruhuna National
Park, Blocks 1-V and Strict Nature Reserve; Katagamuwa and Kataragama
 2471

Figure 2. Landuse maps of the study areas (a) Kahalle (b) Yala.

Sanctuaries; and Lunugamwehera National Park). The vegetation in the Yala

protected area complex was predominantly scrub and dry monsoon forest, with
scattered clearings, and some short-grass plains near the coast. A number of
seasonal and perennial reservoirs provided water for elephants and other
wildlife.

Agricultural Practices

We distinguished three agricultural practices: (1) double-crop permanent

agriculture where crops were grown during the wet and dry seasons using
irrigation water from river diversion to supplement rainfall; (2) single-crop
permanent agriculture where a plot was cultivated during the wet season using
rainwater supplemented by water from small, rain-fed reservoirs, and; (3)
chena agriculture where a single-crop was cultivated during the wet season
using rainwater only. In the double-crop system, the primary growing season
extended from October to January, during the North–east monsoon and the
secondary season commenced in April with the inter-monsoonal rains. The
length of the fallow period being inadequate to permit scrub regeneration,
vegetative cover in fallow fields was absent or limited to grasses. In the single-
crop and chena systems, the longer fallow period from February to September
allowed plots to be colonized by grasses, and scrub vegetation such as
2472

Dichrostachys cinerea, Acacia sp., and Memecyclon sp. Except during the four-
month growing season from October to January, human activity was minimal
in the single-crop and chena fields. Traditionally, chena fields were cultivated
for 2–3 successive years, then abandoned for 5–10 years. Succession during the
5–10 year period between cultivation cycles, created a vegetational mosaic in
the area, ranging from scrub in early colonization stages, to mature secondary
forest.
In both forms of permanent agriculture, the crop of choice was rice, the
cultivation of which required ploughing of fields. Vegetables, finger millet and
corn were cultivated in chena, and fields were not ploughed. Use of fertiliser,
weedicides, and insecticides was high under the double-crop regime, less under
the single-crop regime, and rare or even absent in traditional chena. However,
even in the chena areas, an increasing tendency to use agro-chemicals, and to
farm for longer periods before rotating plots was observed.
The dominant agricultural practice in the Kahalle study area was double-
crop permanent agriculture, with a small area under chena cultivation. In the
Yala study area, the dominant practice was chena, with a few fields cultivated
under the single-crop permanent agriculture regime.

Crop Protection

In Kahalle, crop protection was not well organized and fields were mostly
protected on an individual basis with little co-operation between farmers. In
the larger tracts of rice cultivation, the central fields were usually not subject to
depredation, whereas peripheral fields were at much higher risk. In many cases,
businessmen owned the central fields and peasant farmers the peripheral fields.
Central fields were usually not guarded but benefited from guarding of the
periphery. However, upon being chased from peripheral fields, raiding ele-
phants sometimes entered central unguarded fields, causing much damage. In
some cases, the lack of co-ordination in cultivating a tract resulted in some
farmers harvesting their fields earlier. When a peripheral field was harvested
early, it was left unguarded and served as an inroad to the tract for crop raiding
elephants.
In Yala, crop protection was well organized in the single-crop permanent
fields and individual farmers were assigned guard duty by a farmer society.
Watch huts were constructed on the perimeter of tracts rather than on indi-
vidual fields. Harvesting and guarding was co-ordinated so that the entire tract
was guarded till harvesting was complete. Chena fields were guarded on an
individual basis, by keeping watch from a hut in the chena. When elephant
presence was detected, neighbors co-operated to chase them from the vicinity,
by shouting and lighting firecrackers.
In general, groups of people more readily confronted elephants, and by
shouting, wielding firebrands and lighting firecrackers, were effective in chasing
elephants away from crop areas. Individuals tended not to confront elephants,
 2473

but to shout and light firecrackers from a safe vantage point, hence were less
successful in chasing elephants and protecting crops.

Elephant Behavior and Habitat Use

The home ranges of some of the radio tracked elephants overlapped with the
study areas, but overall, they ranged over a much larger area. In both south–
east and north–central regions, home range extents of elephants were similar
(Table 1). Elephants showed high fidelity to well circumscribed home ranges.
Some radio-collared elephants in Yala, ranged entirely within, some completely
outside, and others both in and out of the protected area (Table 1). Obser-
vations showed that a number of elephant herds moved from the protected
area into the chena fields in the dry season. These herds fed on crop material
left over from the harvest and colonizing pioneer vegetation in fallow chena
and single-crop fields. Sprouting stumps of Limonia acidissima and Bauhinia
racemosa provided additional fodder in chena fields. During the wet season,
when fields were cultivated, these elephants moved back into the protected area
complex. This habitat use pattern by elephants was confirmed by the radio
tracking study and monitoring elephant use of the area, with more elephant
sign being observed during the fallow dry season from April to September
(n = 358), than during the cultivated wet season (n = 34). In addition, the
monitoring data indicated differential use of the area by adult males and female
herds, with some males using the area in the wet season but female herds using
the area mainly in the dry season (Figure 3).

Table 1. Elephant home range extents and relation to protected areas (PA).

Elephant Home range % of range % of time

extent (ha) within PA within PA

South-eastern
Male 1 34,590 95 90
Male 2 23,730 68 71
Male 3 28,630 92 59
Female 1 12,540 60 32
Female 2 2962 0 0
Female 3 3180 100 100
Female 4 14,120 100 100
North-central
Male 1 5360 0 0
Male 2 11,540 0 0
Male 3 18,360 0 0
Female 1 5640 0 0
Female 2 4830 0 0
Female 3 9510 0 0
Female 4 16,070 0 0
Female 5 5040 0 0
2474

Figure 3. Elephant use of chena areas through the year.

Radio-tracking and discussion with farmers in the north–central region

indicated that elephants took refuge in small forest patches during the day, and
emerged at night to feed in adjacent agricultural lands. Since there were no
large PA, all elephants ranged entirely outside PA throughout the year. Most
herds in Yala and Kahalle had young, suggesting successful reproduction and
recruitment.

Patterns of Depredation

Field surveys and village interviews indicated that elephant crop depredation
occurred throughout the year in Kahalle, and both males and female herds
with young, raided crops. As crops were restricted to the rainy season in the
Yala chena area, and there were no permanent habitations, raiding was strictly
seasonal, and raiding appeared to be exclusively by males. The pattern of
raiding in Yala was supported by the radio-tracking study, which found that
one male raided crops four times during 1 year, but none of the tracked
females raided.
Of 412 elephant dung piles examined in Kahalle, 19% contained crop
material representing 24 crop species. Crop material was found in the dung
of both adults and juveniles, confirming raiding by female herds. None of 62
dung piles examined in Yala had identifiable crop material. As macroscopic
dung analysis is not very sensitive, the non-detection of crop material in
Yala, does not necessarily contradict the interview data, which indicated the
 2475

Table 2. Results of survey in Kahalle (n = 162) and Yala (n = 122) to ascertain attitudes to the
human–elephant conflict.

Question assessed No. of affirmative responses

Kahalle Yala

Elephants are a significant threat to personal safety 157 98

Elephants are the primary cause of crop loss 151 51
Human–elephant conflict mitigation is the responsibility of:
The government alone 146 45
The community alone 5 13
The government and community 11 64

occurrence of crop raiding, but suggests a relatively low prevalence of crop

raiding in Yala.

Human Attitudes

In both Kahalle and Yala, farming was the main livelihood (76 and 63%
respectively) of the sampled families. In Kahalle, 97% of surveyed families
considered elephants to be a major threat to personal safety, compared to 80%
in Yala (Table 2). While 93% of respondents from Kahalle considered ele-
phants to be the primary cause of crop losses, only 42% in Yala did so.
Therefore, the perceived damage by elephants was greater in Kahalle than in
Yala. In Yala, 31% considered domestic cattle and water buffalo to be greater
sources of crop damage than elephants.
In Kahalle, 90% of respondents indicated that instituting mitigation mea-
sures was the sole responsibility of the Department of Wildlife Conservation
(DWLC), compared to only 37% in Yala (Table 2). Moreover, in Kahalle,
only 10% of the respondents indicated that villagers should contribute to
mitigation, compared to 63% in Yala.

Discussion

The perceived level of human–elephant conflict was greater in Kahalle than in

Yala. While this is partly attributable to differences in people’s attitudes,
observations on elephant ranging, behavior, and dung analysis suggest that it
also reflects some real differences in the level of interaction and conflict.
Landuse patterns and agricultural practices were the main observed determi-
nants of human–elephant conflict that varied between the two study areas.
Kahalle was essentially a heterogenous habitat mosaic where irrigated agri-
culture was the main practice. Yala had distinct landuse zones with more
homogenous habitat, with chena cultivation the dominant practice.
2476

The ranging patterns of elephants in the two areas were similar. While home
range extents in Sri Lanka were smaller than those reported from South India
(Baskaran et al. 1993), even in Sri Lanka, elephants required comparatively
large areas to obtain their resource requirements. Therefore, elephant conser-
vation needs to address issues of landscape magnitude. Elephant use of habitat
and resources were different in the two study areas, and was related to agri-
cultural practices and landuse patterns. As the small forest patches and agri-
cultural areas comprised a single mosaic in Kahalle, elephants ranged in similar
habitat throughout the year, utilizing both natural cover and crops for their
resource requirements. In contrast, elephants in Yala ranged in more
homogenous habitats, the protected area and the chena fields, with differential
use of these habitats associated with seasonal changes in cultivation.

Kahalle

Almost all the families in Kahalle attributed economic losses to elephants that
took refuge in small forest patches and launched nocturnal forays into agri-
cultural areas. Absence of contiguous areas of natural cover that could provide
sufficient resources for elephants, led to both humans and elephants occupying
the same space. The lack of demarcation and segregation of elephant- and
human-use areas resulted in year-round interaction and conflict. Despite pre-
sumed stress from conflict with humans, elephants in Kahalle appeared to be
doing well, with successful reproduction and recruitment. Assuming that
chronic stress results in reduced fitness, this may indicate that elephants were
habituated to the conflict and that it no longer caused stress, hence decreased
fitness. Alternatively, since crops are a more nutritious and energy rich food
source than natural forage (Sukumar 1989), it may indicate that the cost im-
posed by the conflict was less than the benefit accrued by utilization of crops.
However, conflict and elephant mortality due to retaliation by farmers from
shooting, poisoning etc. is likely to increase in the future because of on-going
development and human population expansion, and may ultimately overcome
recruitment. Crop raiding by both female herds and males in Kahalle and only
males in Yala, may indicate that crops are an essential resource in Kahalle, but
optional in Yala, where males may be raiding preferentially on a ‘high-risk
high-gain’ strategy (Sukumar 1989). Prevention of crop raiding is generally
expected to decrease conflict between humans and elephants, hence be bene-
ficial to elephant conservation. Paradoxically, if the elephants in Kahalle
depend on crops, successful prevention of crop raiding may threaten
their survival.
Many of the residents in Kahalle were recent (i.e., first and second genera-
tion) settlers originating from areas without elephants. These farmers lacked
the experience, attitude and communal cohesiveness to successfully defend
crops from elephants. Although many families were sympathetic towards the
elephants’ plight and acknowledged that elephants had a right to exist,
 2477

economic realities and dependence on a successful harvest made them intol-

erant of depredation. Crop losses and damage due to elephants also had a high
psychological impact and were perceived as failures on the part of authorities
to provide sufficient protective measures. Thus, elephants were seen as a
deterrent to successful farming in the area.

Yala

The situation in Yala provided a different and contrasting perspective. Unlike

in Kahalle, the large protected area complex provided a refuge for elephants.
The dense human settlements and permanent agriculture areas were separated
from the protected area complex by chena fields that were cultivated only
during the wet season, during which time the elephants were largely in the
protected area. When the elephants moved out of the protected area during the
dry season, these agricultural areas lay fallow, minimizing conflict. Thus, the
chena lands that separated the large protected area from the densely populated
townships was a ‘common-use area’ that allowed for spatial resource parti-
tioning between people and elephants, and where traditional agricultural
practices facilitated temporal resource partitioning. In contrast to Kahalle,
where there was little resource partitioning between people and elephants, the
system in Yala allowed co-existence of humans and elephants with relatively
lower perceived conflict. Moreover, most villagers in Yala had lived there for
several generations. Thus, there was communal cohesiveness among farmers,
who participated in communal crop protection, which appeared to be more
successful than individual guarding. Perhaps because they have traditionally
farmed amidst elephants, these farmers were also less quick to blame and
retaliate against elephants for crop depredations.
In Yala, chena fields provided elephants with food during the critical dry
season, in the form of left over vegetation from the harvest, regeneration in
fallow fields, and succession in abandoned fields. The elephant is an ‘edge
species’ and prefers secondary forests (Mueller-Dombois 1971). The Yala
protected area has traditionally been managed on a ‘hands-off’ basis and much
of the vegetation was in a secondary climax stage of mature scrub forest.
During the dry season, these mature scrub forests provided little fodder for
elephants, and a number of herds moved out of the protected area and into the
chena areas. Therefore, forage provided by chena farming outside the pro-
tected area is likely to be critical for the sustenance of a significant number of
elephants through the limiting dry season.

Lessons for an Elephant Conservation Strategy

The rationale for elephant conservation and management in Asia, has been the
mitigation of human–elephant conflict, and ‘saving’ of elephants at risk from
2478

opening up of land for agricultural development, by translocation into PA. In

most cases, translocation has failed to eliminate elephants from developed
areas. In Sri Lanka as in the rest of Asia, the extent of elephant range outside
PA is greater than that within. However, these PA already hold elephants,
presumably at their long-term carrying capacity. In the absence of substantial
habitat management to increase carrying capacity, large-scale translocation
into PA is detrimental to elephant conservation (Fernando 1997). Therefore,
limiting elephants to PA is not a viable conservation strategy, nor a successful
tactic for mitigating conflict with humans.
The comparison of landuse and land-cover configurations, elephant behav-
ior, and the human responses to conflict in the two study areas provide valu-
able insights into mitigating human–elephant conflict and for elephant
conservation with a long-term vision. The situation in Kahalle indicates that a
fragmented mosaic of small forest patches utilized by elephants, scattered
throughout a human-dominated landscape of irrigated agriculture, exacerbates
the human–elephant conflict. The ultimate result of this conflict will be the
extirpation of elephants from such areas, at a high cost to both humans and
elephants. In contrast, common-use areas managed according to traditional
agricultural practices provide essential resources to elephants, and allow co-
existence of humans and elephants through temporal and spatial resource
partitioning. Given that a larger proportion of current elephant range lies
outside PA, the appropriate management of such areas is an essential com-
ponent of elephant conservation, and is the only possibility of allowing
elephants continued use of such areas into the future.
Landuse planning for conservation landscapes, to take conservation beyond
the boundaries of PA is becoming the new paradigm in large mammal con-
servation (Harris 1984; Lahiri-Choudhury 1991; Noss and Cooperrider 1994;
Noss et al. 1996; Wikramanayake et al. 1998; Hoare 2000). Thus, if Sri Lan-
ka’s, and indeed Asia’s, elephants are to survive the next century, conservation
planners should identify priority elephant conservation areas and work with
policy-makers to agree on landuse within these landscapes. Intense landuse
such as irrigated agriculture and permanent settlements should not be per-
mitted in common-use areas and adjacent to PA (see Desai and Baskaran
1996). Where such areas already exist, elephant barriers should be installed at
the ecological boundary for elephants rather than on administrative bound-
aries as currently practiced. Managed common-use areas and PA need to form
contiguous landscapes that elephants can use into the future.
A landscape conservation strategy incorporating common-use areas and PA
requires landuse zoning, with setting up of managed elephant ranges outside
PA. In such areas, landuse and agricultural practices can be regulated to
maximize diversity and create a more suitable landscape mosaic for elephants,
thus supporting higher densities of elephants. Such managed areas could also
accommodate elephants that are displaced by development.
While the adoption of traditional agricultural practices in place of more
productive modern practices would appear unacceptable at first sight, much of
 2479

elephant range that could be brought under viable irrigated agriculture has
already been developed by major irrigation projects over the past few decades.
Future irrigation development is possible only in a smaller extent of elephant
range, will cause further social and environmental change and upheaval, and
requires major outlays of government revenue with ever diminishing returns. In
contrast, a larger part of elephant range in Sri Lanka continues to be cultivated
under chena agriculture. Chena is currently not recognized as an appropriate
form of farming or landuse by governmental agencies or the conservation
establishment. Chena farmers do not have legal status, or access to agricultural
support systems and financial assistance programs. Recognition of chena as a
landuse practice important for the conservation of elephants and its integration
into managed elephant ranges, would go a long way towards improving the lot
of such farmers. Temporal resource partitioning between humans and ele-
phants permitted by chena farming, provides an opportunity for local com-
munities to derive direct economic benefit from elephants, through activities
such as elephant viewing based tourism. Changes to the status of chena farmers
and the regulation and promotion of chena farming, together with activities
that provide economic benefit from conservation, can provide a viable landuse
management strategy that is beneficial to conservation, of low cost to the
government, and can provide immediate benefit to a large segment of the
population in most need.
The human–elephant conflict is not a recent development and has been
present throughout history whenever and wherever humans and elephants have
co-existed. However, in recent years the conflict has intensified, and changing
agricultural practices and landuse patterns are among the causal factors. A
similar pattern is evident in parts of Africa where a shift from a traditional
pastoral lifestyle to intensive agriculture has resulted in escalation of human–
elephant conflicts (Kiiru 1995). Traditional agricultural practices, though less
productive than modern methods, allow for a more harmonious relationship
between humans and elephants through resource partitioning. As more land is
cleared for permanent agriculture and settlements, the potential for co-exis-
tence between man and elephant rapidly decreases, a trend that is pervasive
throughout Asia (Johnsingh and Joshua 1994; Sukumar 1989; Bist 1998; Ny-
hus et al. 2000); and Africa (Barnes and Alers 1995; Kiiru 1995; Tchamba et al.
1995; Tchamba 1996; O’Connell-Rodwell et al. 2000). As conservationists look
for innovative ways to ensure the survival of the Asian elephant into the future,
some solutions may lie in traditional practices, perceptions, and attitudes of the
past.

Dedication

We dedicate this study to G.V. Gunawardena, of the Department of Wildlife

Conservation, Sri Lanka, himself a victim of the ‘human–elephant conflict’.
Gunawardene was tragically killed by a disoriented elephant, he was helping to
2480

rescue after it had fallen into a well. He was a friend and colleague who never
lacked a sense of humour even under the most trying conditions and hardships.
Gunawardene loved and cherished the wildlife to which he was devoted and
sacrificed his life to protect.

Acknowledgements

We thank the following for their help during this project: D. Dharmawardene,
Y. Wanninayake, M. Siriwardene, H. Corea, Dharmapala, Nirmalie Palle-
watta and March for Conservation with fieldwork in Kahalle; G.V. Gun-
awardene, N. Kaluarachchi, R. Perera and V.U. Weeratunga for field
assistance in Yala; Jennifer Pastorini for comments on the manuscript. We
thank The Asia Foundation for funding the Kahalle study, and the Global
Environmental Facility (GEF), Wildlife Trust, Liz Claiborne and Art Orten-
berg Foundation, and USFWS Asian Elephant Conservation Fund for fund-
ing, and the DWLC, and the Open University Sri Lanka for supporting the
Yala study.

References

Barnes R.F.W. and Alers M.P.T. 1995. A review of the status of forest elephants Loxodonta
africana in Central Africa. Biol. Conserv. 71: 125–132.
Baskaran N., Balasubramanian M., Swaminathan S. and Desai A.J. 1993. Home range of ele-
phants in the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, South India. In: A Week With Elephants, Proceedings of
the International Seminar on Asian Elephants. Daniel J.C. and Datye H. (eds.) Bombay Natural
History Society, Oxford University Press, Bombay, pp. 298–313.
Bist S.S. 1998. Elephant–human conflict in West Bengal. ENVIS. 1: 12–20.
Department of Census and Statistics. 1986. Census of Population and Housing 1981, General
Report. Department of Census and Statistics, Ministry of Plan Implementation, Colombo, Sri
Lanka.
Desai A.A. and Baskaran N. 1996. Impact of human activities on the ranging behaviour of ele-
phants in the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, South India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 93: 559–569.
Fernando P. 1997. Keeping jumbo afloat – Is translocation the answer to the human–elephant
conflict? Sri Lanka Nature 1: 4–12.
Fernando P. 2000. Elephants in Sri Lanka: past, present, and future. Loris 22: 38–44.
Fernando P., Pfrender M.E., Encalada S. and Lande R. 2000. Mitochondrial DNA variation,
phylogeography, and population structure of the Asian elephant. Heredity 84: 362–372.
Fleischer R.C., Perry E.A., Muralidharan K., Stevens E.E. and Wemmer C.M. 2001. Phylogeog-
raphy of the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) based on mitochondrial DNA. Evolution 55:
1882–1892.
Harris L.D. 1984. The Fragmented Forest: Island Biogeography Theory and the Preservation of
Biotic Diversity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Hewavisenthi A.C.D. 1992. Mahaweli water-resources project. Water International 17: 33–43.
Hoare R. 1995. Options for the control of elephants in conflict with people. Pachyderm 19: 54–63.
Hoare R. 2000. African elephants and humans in conflict: the outlook for co-existence. Oryx 34:
34–38.
 2481

Ishwaran N. 1993. Ecology of the Asian elephant in lowland dry zone habitats of the Mahaweli
River basin, Sri Lanka. J. Trop. Ecol. 9: 169–182.
Jayewardene J. 1993. Elephant management and conservation in the Mahaweli project areas. Gajah
11: 6–15.
Jayewardene J. 1994. The Elephant in Sri Lanka. The Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka,
Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Johnsingh A.J.T. and Joshua J. 1994. Conserving Rajaji and Corbett national parks – the elephant
as a flagship species. Oryx 2: 135–140.
Kie J.G., Baldwin J.A. and Evans C.J. 1996. CALHOME: a program for estimating animal home
ranges. Wildlife Soc. Bull. 24: 342–344.
Kiiru W. 1995. The current status of human–elephant conflict in Kenya. Pachyderm 19: 15–17.
Lahiri-Choudhury D.K. 1991. Saving elephants for posterity. IUCN/SSC Asian Elephant Spe-
cialist Group Newsletter 6: 18–19.
Mueller-Dombois D. 1971. Crown distortion and elephant distribution in the woody vegetations of
Ruhuna National Park, Ceylon. Ecology 53: 208–226.
Noss R.F. and Cooperrider A. 1994. Saving Nature’s Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodi-
versity. Defenders of Wildlife and Island Press, Washington DC.
Noss R.F., Quigley H.B., Hornocker M.G., Merrill T. and Paquet P.C. 1996. Conservation biology
and carnivore conservation in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology 10: 949–963.
Nyhus P.J., Tilson R. and Sumianto 2000. Crop-raiding elephants and conservation implications at
Way Kambas National Park, Sumatra, Indonesia. Oryx 34: 262–274.
O’Connell-Rodwell C.E., Rodwell T., Rice M. and Hart L.A. 2000. Living with the modern
conservation paradigm: can agricultural communities co-exist with elephants? A five-year case
study in East Caprivi, Nambibia. Biol. Conserv. 93: 381–391.
Santiapillai C. and Jackson P. 1990. The Asian Elephant: An Action Plan for its Conservation.
IUCN/SSC Asian Elephant Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Sukumar R. 1989. The Asian Elephant: Ecology and Management. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
Tchamba M.N. 1996. History and present status of the human/elephant conflict in the Waza-
Logone region, Cameroon, West Africa. Biol. Conserv. 75: 35–41.
Tchamba M.N., Bauer H. and De-Iongh H.H. 1995. Application of VHF-radio and satellite
telemetry techniques on elephants in northern Cameroon. Afr. J. Ecol. 35: 335–345.
White G.C. and Garrot R.A. 1990. Analysis of Wildlife Radio-tracking Data. Academic Press, San
Diego, California.
Wikramanayake E.D., Dinerstein E., Robinson J.G., Karanth U., Rabinowitz A., Olson D.,
Matthew T., Hedao P., Conner M., Hemley G. and Bolze D. 1998. An ecology-based method for
defining priorities for large mammal conservation: the tiger as a case study. Conserv. Biol. 12:
865–878.

View publication stats