Lerner 1 Ben Lerner 13 October 2014 Bill Durham, Susan Charnley Parks and People Cultivating Conservation: How to Safely Prevent Elephants from Destroying Crops in Tanzania Introduction: In Tanzania, the people and animals both want one thing: food. With extensive savannahs covering the majestic landscape, one might expect this to be relatively easy. Take, for example, the zebra. According to Hashim, the zebra population is not limited by anything. Upon doing some of my own research, however, I found that in 2003, a study was conducted to figure out why there aren t more zebras in the Serengeti, and it found zebra populations are pretty much
Lerner 2 entirely limited by the death of calves in their first year (Grange et al 03: 523). To put another way, zebras can eat as much as they want, wherever they want, and, as a result, become almost a nuisance after just a few days in the park. But humans and elephants are both far pickier when it comes to their diet. Luckily for elephants, human foods such as bananas, maize, and sorghum are widely available in neat plots, practically begging to be eaten. Though elephants raid crops out of hunger in the savannah, in the forest elephants seem to simply enjoy eating tasty foods, and will raid crops when they are most ripe (Chiyo 05: 48). Unfortunately for humans, elephants can easily consume and trample an entire year s crop in just a few hours. The resulting conflict is common throughout Africa and Asia, and has been aptly dubbed Human Elephant Conflict (HEC). Before delving too deeply into the details of this conflict, though, I should discuss elephant populations in Tanzania, where I will focus my research. It is commonly held that elephant populations are on the rise. Not only do national parks see increasingly massive populations during their aerial surveys (Foley 10: 208), but stringent restrictions on ivory trade throughout the world have decreased poaching, one of the largest inhibitors of elephant populations. This is largely true in
Lerner 3 Tanzania, as well; or at least it was until around 2007, when elephant populations began to suddenly decrease (see figure 1). Figure 1: Tanzania s total elephant population (TAWIRI 10: 10) This trend likely contradicts national park population surveys because elephants have been congregating in protected areas as their habitats become increasingly fragmented. The overall decrease in population, though can be explained by the Proportion Illegally Killed Elephants (PIKE) in Kenya and Tanzania, which has seen a sharp increase from about 20% of elephant deaths to about 60% of elephant deaths since 2007 (Figure 2). Figure 2: Tanzania & Kenya s PIKE (IUCN 13: 6)
Lerner 4 This uptick in PIKE, whether from shooting problem elephants or simply seeking additional income with a disregard for wildlife bred from frustration and economic loss, has led to a decline in elephant populations in Tanzania and provides a framework for the complexity of HEC solutions. With elephant populations currently threatened, how are humans fairing with these conflicts? In short, just as bad as the elephants. Though the population in Tanzania has been skyrocketing, leading to increased fragmentation of elephant corridors and HEC, elephant damage to crops has proved detrimental to Tanzanians in three main ways. First, the economic impacts of crop destruction are brutal for subsistence farmers. More than one in ten crop raids completely eliminate the farmer s crops (Gilingham 03: 321), and about 70% of Tanzanians experience HEC (TAWIRI 10: 24). There is currently no compensation program for the farmers to be reimbursed for their destroyed crops (Sitati, Walpole 06: 279) and no fencing programs funded by the Tanzanian government. This results in less viable agriculture, which is crucial to diversifying unstable incomes, supporting a strong claim for land rights, and bolstering traditional pastoralist cultures alongside small farm plots. The next, more obvious, impact of HEC is human injury and death. Each year about 100 Tanzanians are injured or killed by elephants (TAWIRI 10: 26), leading to significant resentment of elephants and wildlife. This brings me to the third, most important point, HEC causes locals to greatly resent and oppose the preservation of wildlife and ecosystems (Gillingham 03 and Sitati, Walpole 06). Care obviously must be taken when looking into solutions for HEC, but what is currently being done? Farmers use spiky acacia bushes as a fence around their
Lerner 5 crops, which is entirely ineffective (King 11: 436). Unfortunately, the more permanent solution farmers devised was to shoot elephants that were known to raid crops. Though this removes problem elephants, it is entirely ineffective at preventing the problem as a whole (TAWIRI 10: 27). The only effective method farmers have is to scare the elephants away with light and noise, but this requires many hours of manpower (since elephants tend to raid at night), which makes it unfeasible for most families. Finally, we turn to the question of where these farmers are located, an issue which turns out to be extremely topical to our class. The Tanzania Research Institute (TAWIRI) released a map showing the areas with the most HEC by legislative district in Tanzania (Figure 3). Figure 3 (TAWIRI 10: 25)
Lerner 6 As you can see, HEC data, where reported, points to a direct correlation between proximity to National Park or Game Reserve and number of HEC incidents per year. This is important for four reasons. 1) The people most affected by wildlife conflict have also been most affected by the existence of the protected area through land restrictions, usage restrictions, and perhaps even displacement. 2) These same people are the most underrepresented and underprivileged in Tanzanian politics. 3) Protected areas are the refuge for nearly all of Tanzania s endangered species, which badly need the protection, not malice, of those living nearby. 4) The people in these regions are least likely to seek government aid since the government is often far more interested in the revenue generated by their national parks than in the peoples surrounding them. With increasing human populations in Tanzania, new solutions will be needed to maintain the peaceful coexistence of people and wildlife. So, how can crops effectively and economically be protected from elephant raids while promoting the growth of declining elephant populations in Tanzania? I have researched three hypotheses to answer this question. Hypothesis #1: Barriers To begin, I tested if barriers are an effective method of preventing elephant damage that can easily be implemented by individual farmers. I began by researching the simplest solution that came to mind, improving the traditional fences farmers currently use. Richard Hoare, one of the world s experts on HEC in Africa and India, wrote a ten page technical brief for the IUCN African Elephant
Lerner 7 Specialist Group on traditional barrier methods as a means of keeping elephants out of crops. He summarizes the problem succinctly, saying: Physical barriers, although an expensive option, are seen by many people as potentially a permanent solution to an elephant problem. Several types of barriers have been tried against elephants, most commonly electrified wire fences. In practice, long-term success with anti-elephant fences has often fallen well below expectation. This is sometimes because of layout or design but more frequently simply because of deficiencies in meeting the considerable demands of meticulous routine maintenance, (Hoare 03: 1). Maintenance, then, is the crucial issue for fencing effectiveness while cost is critical for implementation. Hoare quickly draws the conclusion that smaller fences are more effective, mostly because of said maintenance concerns. This is a problem, however, since elephants are also likely to follow any fence they encounter with food behind it to its edge. This means the farmers must entirely enclose both their crops and, if they live nearby, their house so that they don t end up with hungry elephants arriving on their front step. He addresses the issue of electrification, acknowledging its effectiveness when maintained, but also notes how easily it can be rendered completely useless by one grounding point. Finally, and most importantly for large-scale implementation, the cost of such fences are prohibitive for most farmers. Thus, I cannot prove that traditional fencing would work well at repelling elephants.
Lerner 8 The next, more exciting type of fencing I examined was based on the research of King et al in northern Kenya. King s work was based upon the observations of Vollrath and Douglas-Hamilton. In 2002, the pair had discovered elephants avoid feeding on acacia trees with beehives in them. Then, in 2007, they discovered that elephants have a specific call used when they hear the buzz of the African Honey Bee, and will run from the threat. King decided to put this research to the test and create a fence of beehives every 10 meters- a distance carefully measured in his previous research- around two communities crops in northern Kenya. Each beehive cost about $22, and 170 beehives (1.7 km) were placed around 17 farmers crops, for a total cost of about $220 per farmer. The results were extremely positive; only one elephant broke through the barrier over the course of the two-year study, which amounts to a 98% reduction on crop invasions from the control farms. In addition, 106kg of honey was harvested from the farms during the period, which could be consumed or sold by the individual farmers. The farmers were very enthusiastic about the beehive fencing since it diversified their income, was low cost, and was extremely effective at preventing elephant invasions. However, King points out that there may be two problems for beehive fencing. If sparsely adopted, elephants will likely raid nearby, unprotected farms instead. If widely adopted, however, bees could reach a saturation point, especially in dry regions without many wildflowers. Overall, though, beehives appear to be an effective barrier against elephants. The next barrier solution I examined, chili-tobacco rope fencing, is also a newer approach. The most comprehensive study done on chili and tobacco as an elephant deterrent was authored by Sitati and Walpole and was conducted in Kenya,
Lerner 9 just to the north of Tanzania. Chili-tobacco rope fencing is premised on elephants fantastic sense of smell, which makes chili powder, common motor grease, and tobacco all extremely offensive to the elephant. Sitati and Walpole used a rope strung 3m off the ground, coated with a mixture of these three substances as a means of keeping the elephants away from the farmers crops. This was extremely successful, and led to a 100% reduction in elephant raids over the course of a two year study. Chili-tobacco fencing is extremely easy and cheap to put up, but does require reapplication of the chili-grease mixture every week. One study noted that 1 km of chili-tobacco rope fencing cost around $250/year to coat every week, but this could decrease significantly by region and materials selected (Chelliah 10: 1242). In comparison, 1km of beehive fencing costs about $130/km, 1 km of trenches costs about $2000/km, and 1 km of electric fencing costs about $2500/km. Sitati and Walpole are quick to point out that, mitigation efforts may simply displace elephants to other farms in the short-term, and in the longer term elephants may habituate to these false threats (Sitati, Walpole 06: 279). Thus, chili-tobacco rope also seems like a viable option, especially in the short-term, due to its simplicity and affordability. It is clear, then, that traditional fencing methods are not a viable solution for preventing crop raiding, but both beehive fences and chili-tobacco rope fences seem to be very effective. As a method of prevention, barriers have some difficulties, though. They require widespread adoption, perhaps even government mandated and funded adoption, to actually lower the number of elephant raids in a regionotherwise elephants will simply find unprotected farms. It also will likely be
Lerner 10 expensive, though both are comparatively cheap and beehive fences would pay themselves off in a few years. The biggest problem, though, is for elephants. By constructing fencing around every farm, soft boundaries become hard boundaries, and hungry elephants remain hungry. Since habitat fragmentation is already one of the largest threats to elephants, barriers alone will only exacerbate elephant decline. Thus, while barriers can be extremely effective for farmers, elephants will likely need a different solution to thrive in Tanzania. Hypothesis #2: Crops My next hypothesis is that, by planting crops elephants won t eat, farmers can prevent HEC, leading to economic gains and stronger elephant populations in Tanzania. As it turns out, Patrick Chiyo conducted a study testing just this in Kibale National Forest, Uganda. The study found that primarily maize and banana crops were raided, but elephants did not consume coffee, tea, tobacco, groundnuts, or potatoes. Though the elephants were completely undeterred by a border of these crops around maize or bananas, when farmers planted exclusively non-elephantpalatable crops, the elephants showed no interest in raiding the crops. It is important, however, to look into the viability of this option for the farmers. Ultimately, farmers plant a lot of maize, and some banana, because these crops are the most profitable for them. Asking farmers to abandon maize and grow less valuable crops instead would be equivalent to asking them to take a pay decrease. Thus, from a farmer s perspective, a beehive or chili-tobacco fence is cheaper and therefore more favorable than planting alternative crops. From an elephant s
Lerner 11 perspective, alternative crops are very attractive because they allow for softer boundaries than barriers while also decreasing the number of elephant killings. They do not, however, solve for the problem of increasing habitat fragmentation. This compromise will help neither the elephants nor the people in any significant way, so I discard it as a potential solution. Hypothesis #3: Corridors The final hypothesis I examine attempts to correct for the issue of hard and soft boundaries barriers and crops present. Specifically, by providing elephant corridors, Tanzania can support its farmers and protect its elephants. As you recall, elephants in the savannah tend to raid crops out of hunger, while elephants in the forest tend to raid crops simply because they look tasty. So, by providing larger elephant corridors, elephants in the savannah should no longer be forced to raid crops out of hunger. For this hypothesis, I again look to TAWIRI s 5-year elephant management plan. According to TAWIRI s research, corridors are also vital for the long-term health and persistence of meta-populations, especially of landscape species with large home ranges such as the African Elephant, as well as for the wider ecological integrity of the nation, (TAWIRI 10: 17). They also found that of the 23 known elephant corridors in Tanzania, five will disappear in the next two years, and another nine will be gone in the next five years (Figure 4).
Lerner 12 Figure 4 (TAWIRI 10: 19) Clearly, these corridors are crucial for the survival of elephants, but how will they affect farmers? They should benefit farmers by reducing the crop raiding instances in savannah regions, but they won t help farmers in the few forested regions of Tanzania. Despite any potential benefits in decreased crop raiding, though, farmers will greatly suffer from the annexation of additional land for wildlife use. Already, those farmers most affected by crop raiding are adjacent to protected areas and bear the brunt of the existing costs, so dedicating more land to protection will only perpetuate the land-use strain, evictions, cultural destruction, poverty, and antipark/anti-government sentiments already prevalent in these regions. It is important to note that not all land is being used for agriculture, however, and elephant corridors can also be created from, and used for, pastureland. Thus, if implemented correctly and with significant input from local communities, there is a place for
Lerner 13 elephant corridors in the future of reducing HEC and stabilizing elephant populations. Conclusions: We now find ourselves back at our original question: what should be done to prevent HEC and stabilize elephant populations in Tanzania? Ultimately, I advocate for a combination of barriers and corridors. Specifically, I think that chili-tobacco rope fences could be implemented very quickly and greatly reduce the impact of elephants on farmers. Longer term, I think beehive fences could be implemented with caution to reduce any adverse affect increased bee populations may have on Tanzania. As long as every farm has some effective barrier method, humans should
Lerner 14 remain safe, both physically and economically. For the elephants, however, I think Tanzania should designate and protect elephant corridors, where pastoralists are allowed to graze and maintain their communal land without development. This ensures that elephant populations can move through the land unmolested and untempted by crops. This would have the added benefit of incentivizing and encouraging traditional pastoralist lifestyles. By flexibly using both approaches, it should be possible to prevent the majority of crop raids from occurring while also protecting the elephant population of Tanzania.
Lerner 15 Sources Chelliah, K., et al. "Testing the Efficacy of a chili tobacco Rope Fence as a Deterrent Against Crop-Raiding Elephants." CURRENT SCIENCE 99.9 (2010): 1239. Digital. Chiyo, Patrick I., et al. "Temporal Patterns of Crop Raiding by Elephants: A Response to Changes in Forage Quality Or Crop Availability?" African Journal of Ecology 43.1 (2005): 48-55. Digital. Foley, Charles A. H., and Lisa J. Faust. "Rapid Population Growth in an Elephant Loxodonta Africana Population Recovering from Poaching in Tarangire National Park, Tanzania." Oryx 44.02 (2010): 205-12. Print. Gillingham, Sarah, and Phyllis C. Lee. "People and Protected Areas: A Study of Local Perceptions of Wildlife Crop-Damage Conflict in an Area Bordering the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania." Oryx 37.03 (2003): 316-25. Digital. Grange, Sophie, Patrick Duncan, Jean-Michel Gaillard, Anthonyr.e. Sinclair, Peterj.p. Gogan, Craig Packer, Heribert Hofer, and Marion East. "What Limits the Serengeti Zebra Population?" Oecologia 140.3 (2004): 523-32. Web. 1 Oct. 2014. Hoare, R. E. "Determinants of Human-Elephant Conflict in a Land-use Mosaic." Journal of Applied Ecology 36.5 (1999): 689-700. Digital. Hoare, R.E. Projects of the Human-Elephant Conflict Taskforce (HETF) - Results and Recommendations. Pachyderm 28 (2000): 73-77. Digital. Hoare, R.E. VERTICALLY INTEGRATED HUMAN-ELEPHANT CONFLICT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN TANZANIA: BACKGROUND AND NEXT STEPS. Report to WWF International (2007). Digital. Hoare, R.E. FENCING AND OTHER BARRIERS AGAINST PROBLEM ELEPHANTS. Report to IUCN (2003). Digital Hoare, R.E.; Du Toit, J. T. Coexistance between people and elephants in Africa Savannahs. Conservation Biology 13:3 (1999). 633-639. Digital IUCN, CITES Secretariat, and TRAFFIC International. Status of African Elephant Populations and Levels of Illegal Killing and the Illegal Trade in Ivory. Rep. African Elephant Summit, Dec. 13. Web. 1 Oct. 2014. King, Lucy E., Iain Douglas-Hamilton, and Fritz Vollrath. "Beehive Fences as Effective Deterrents for Crop-Raiding Elephants: Field Trials in Northern Kenya." African Journal of Ecology 49.4 (2011): 431-9. Print. Sitati, Noah W., and Matthew J. Walpole. "Assessing Farm-Based Measures for Mitigating Human-Elephant Conflict in Transmara District, Kenya." Oryx 40.03 (2006): 279-86. Print. Sitati, N. (2007) Guidelines for Protecting Crops from Raiding by Elephants Around Salakpra Wildlife Sanctuary, West Thailand. A report submitted to Elephant Conservation Network, Kanchanaburi, Thailand. TAWIRI. Tanzania Elephant Management Plan 2010-2015. 2010. Digital. Vollrath, F. & Douglas-Hamilton, I. (2002) African bees to control African elephants. Naturwissenschaften 89, 508 511.