Mitigation of Human – Elephant Conflict (HEC) through introduction of less vulnerable, innovative agricultural production systems – A pilot project in Laggala - Pallegama DS division,

Mitigation of Human – Elephant Conflict (HEC) through introduction of less vulnerable, innovative agricultural

production systems – A pilot project in Laggala - Pallegama DS division, Central province of Sri Lanka.

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

Funding Agency : Born Free, UK

Implementing agency: National Environmental Forum, Sri Lanka

MARCH 2010

Prepared by Sarath Ekanayake and Koushalya Mahagedara

Final Report

Mitigation of HEC through innovative farming National Environmental Forum

National N E F Page 2

CONTENTS

Chapter 1: Introduction and project objectives Page 03

Chapter 2: Material and method Page 05

Chapter 3: Results and discussion Page 09

Annexes

Annex 1: Indigenous knowledge components useful in managing HEC Page 19

Annex 2: Crops planted in family farms and their score for “no damage'' category Page 24

Annex 3: A visual outline of the project Page 28

Annex 4: Project Proposal Page 36

Final Report



Chapter 1: Introduction and project objectives

The Asian elephant (Elephus maximus) is of global ecological importance and classified as endangered on the IUCN Red List of threatened animals. Sri Lankan elephant (Elephus maximus maximus) is a sub‐species of Asian elephant, and have been of great cultural, aesthetic and economic significance to the people of Sri Lanka for more than 25 centuries. However, these elephants are now threatened by habitat loss and fragmentation. Both elephants and people are competing for the same scarce land and water resources. In recent years, an average of 100‐150 elephants and 60 people have died annually in Sri Lanka due to intense human‐elephant conflict (HEC). Almost all of these elephants are shot, poisoned or wounded by farmers in defense of, or in retaliation for damaged crops, property and life. HEC has been intensified by the spread of agriculture into elephant habitats. Elephants have been ‘squeezed’ into protected areas by this habitat loss and conflict inevitably follows as elephants have less area in which to feed and roam. Elephants have large biological ranges and migrate seasonally to follow the availability of water and foods, often traveling great distances. More than 70% of elephants in Sri Lanka live outside park boundaries (Janssen et al 2008), thus protected areas alone cannot ensure the long‐term survival of the elephants. According to media reports over the last few years, terriorist activities in the Northern part of the country have resulted in serious disturbances to peaceful living of wild elephants and injured elephnts are often have aggressive behavior contributing to HEC. Many studies in the past have highlighted the need for conservation of wild elephants and alleviation of HEC, which are inter‐related (Santiapillai and Jackson 1990; Santiapillai and de Silva, 1994; Jayawardena, 1994; Desai, 1998). Based on the recommendations of these studies, the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC) has attempted various strategies to conserve the elephant and also to protect the farmers and their crops in the areas surrounding forest reserves. These include: (a) establishment of new national parks, elephant corridors and conservation areas; (b) habitat enrichment; (c) capture and translocation of problem bulls; (d) collective drives of herds to protected areas; (e) electrical and biological fencing; and (f) provision of assistance and thunder flashes to villagers to drive away animals that invade their homesteads. Some of these attempts have been successful while others have failed to produce the expected results. However, the absence of comprehensive data on the ecology, ranging behavior, resource utilization and food preferences of wild elephants has hampered the development of conservation strategies in the country. Moreover, it is necessary come up with innovative HEC mitigation approaches applicable under low external inputs and manageable to local rural communities. Along these lines, the present proposed project attempts to find community based screening of less vulnerable crop species, suitable agronomic practices and the associated traditional knowledge system in partial mitigation of the HEC through low cost and non destructive win‐win approach.

Final Report



Project goal:

To maximize rural agricultural outputs, human well‐being and positive attitude towards wild elephants among rural communities as a partial solution to HEC.

Main objectives:

a. To collate indigenous knowledge on crop varieties and agricultural practices which are less vulnerable to elephant raids, and are useful in sustaining rural livelihoods.

b. To validate likely HEC resistant models of agricultural practices through community based field research.

c. To carry out pilot tests of small scale agricultural livelihood model (s) appropriate to HEC localities.

Final Report



Chapter 2: Material and method

Site description:

The project area is located in the North East of Matale district of the central province where the Knuckles mountain region is situated (see Figure 01 and 02).

(Source: Survey Department, 1988)

Figure 01 : The map showing the Knuckles mountain region.

Final Report



Figure 02: The map showing Knuckles conservation area.

The altitude is around 375m and comes under the physiographic unit of north central ridges and valleys of the Mahaweli basin, which comprises a series of lower ridges and valleys extending northwards from the Knuckles range. The area could be considered transitional between the Upland and Lowlands (Anonymous, 1962). The major land use categories of the north east lowlands of the Knuckles include (a) Relatively undisturbed lowland moist semi evergreen forests, (b) Chena lands (slash and burn agriculture); this designation has been given to cultivated, areas that are included in a system of land rotation,(c) Homestead gardens; this is the family residential unit, consisting of a

Final Report



homestead garden or gardens surrounding it. This unit can vary in area from a fraction of an acre to several acres, but the smaller gardens are more common,(d) Paddy lands; this category comprises all land that is used exclusively or primarily for paddy. It includes rain fed and irrigated paddy lands, (e) Savannah; these lie in scattered patches throughout the area as a result of chena cultivation and periodic fire and(f) Scrublands; this term has been used to designate areas characterized by a low dense growth of shrubs and small trees (Ekanayake, 1994).

The area belongs to the stratigraphic category of Pre Cambrian crystalline complex of Highland series of Sri Lanka and the DSD areas consist of undifferentiated metasedimentary rocks and charnokites (Cooray, 1961). Soil layer is shallow and consists of consist of Reddish Brown Earths and Immature Brown Loams of rolling hilly and steep terrain. In addition, Red Yellow Podzolic soils and Mountain Regosols occur in mountainous terrain of Illukkumbura (Kannangara, 1988).

Climate data are available for Pallegama and the mean annual temperature and rainfall are 25.70C and 2447 mm respectively. Rainfall regimes recorded for Pallegama and nearby areas have indicated that 45% to 55% of the annual rainfall is experienced during the north east monsoon months (December‐ January). The share of the south west monsoon rains (May‐September inclusive) decrease to 8% to 15%, and that of the intermonsoon (October, November, March and April) rains between 35% and 40% (Muller‐Dombois, 1968; Anonymous, 1962).

According to the Department of Census and Statistics (2001) Laggala Pallegama District Secretariat division is among the first 25 poorest DS divisions out of 119 in the country. The total population of Laggala Pallegama District Secretariat division is 12399, and Kivulewadiya village where most of project activities were done, there are 270 people.

Data Collection:

Data collection on the subject was carried out through literature survey, consultation of community informants and professionals. Field surveys were carried out to collect site specific data on traditional agricultural knowledge on HEC resistant crops and farming practices. Adult farmers, over 40 years age, who are permanent residents of Laggala Pallegama DS division and have been involved with local level farming activities for over 20 years were selected by snow ball sampling for interviewing (Blaxter et al, 1999). Through community perception, priority crops were screened for piloting. Cropping trials to verify the damage by elephants were done in selected family farms subjected to most severe HEC related crop damage as per community perception. Agronomic operations were handled by relevant land holders according to guidelines provided. Performances of the crops in the context of HEC were evaluated periodically.

Final Report



Activity plan

Proposed activities under objective (a)

Timeline 2009

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1. Literature survey on relevant indigenous knowledge on less vulnerable promising crop varieties and agricultural practices

2. Community consultation and field based gathering of data (including audio visual capturing) in the central province of Sri Lanka for compilation of indigenous agricultural knowledge on HEC mitigation.

3. Consultation of professionals and indigenous practitioners including telephone interviews.

4. Report synthesis including preparation indigenous knowledge data base on mitigating HEC through agricultural interventions.

5. Public event for the sharing of the lessons learned.

Proposed activities under objective (b)

1. Community awareness on the project and selection of community agricultural researchers as leaders for field testing.

2. Establishment of HEC resistant experimental agricultural production models, based on (a) 4 result, in five land plots belonging to different farmers in Laggala – Pallegama DS division.

3. Community mediated evaluation and monitoring of the performance of potential HEC resistant experimental agricultural production models.

4. Production of audio visual awareness material on the project.

5. Report synthesis on performance of possible HEC resistant agricultural practices.

6. Public event for sharing the lessons learned.

Proposed activities under objective (c)

1. Community consultation and selection of another set of 10 sites in the Laggala‐Pallegama DS division for adoption of superior HEC resistant agricultural practices based on lessons learned under (b)5.

2. Field level scaling up of superior HEC resistant agricultural interventions in ten sites.

3. Public event and wider circulation of the lessons learned.

Final Report



Chapter 3: Results and discussion

1. Indigenous knowledge on traditional HEC management and relevent cropping practices

Indegenous knowledge (IK) can be defined as the knowledge developed by a given culture to classify the objects, activities, and events of the universe. IK is a cumulative body of knowledge and belief, handed down through generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship of living being (including humans) with one another and with their environment. Further, IK is an attribute of societies with historical continuity in resource use practice; by and large, these are non‐industrial or less technologically advanced societies, many of them indegenous or tribal (Kumaran et al, 2007)

Indigenous knowledge is composite but holistic, which is from different sources, their parents, indigenous experts, empirical trials and even scientific information. Both indigenous and scientific knowledge is always imperfect; therefore using one does not necessarily reject another. It needs mutual respect and involves an iterative learning process. Indigenous knowledge system is a cognitive diversity in the scientific learning process. Just as biodiversity is invaluable for human being, so, too, is cognitive diversity (Harding, 1998).

The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, to which Sri Lanka is a partner, is also key international protocols for not only protection and sharing of biological resources, but also addressing issues of indigenous knowledge. It calls for to respect, to promote wide application of indigenous knowledge. However, in the context of HEC in Sri Lanka, exploration and application of IK in addressing the issues remain far from adequate. Even a superficial understanding of the IK in relation to HEC management points to the fact that those adaptive practices have given rise to the knowledge that enables rural people to live with confidence in diverse and sometimes harsh environments, as well as develop their livelihoods, such as shifting cultivation, home gardening, beekeeping, livestock rearing and paddy cultivation, as well as trade of natural and cultural products for generations. Therefore, it is worth attempt, firstly document the relevant IK scattered in published and unpublished sources including active village practices. The impacts of such indigenous practices need to be assessed from a local perspective at initial stages rather than going for hard core science. Also it is high time to see whether safety nets are available from IK after years of investments in HEC management through expensive solutions like electric fencing and relocation of elephants. Probably, there may have to strike a balance between 'hard'and 'soft' solutions, rather than labeling IK as primitive, unscientific or unsustainable. This needs both scientists and indigenous experts or “community scientists” to work together for further generations of accountable knowledge system. In that line of thinking, the present community based project enabled recording some important indigenous knowledge elements pertaining to HEC management. They have been summarized in Annex 1.

The database shows the diversity of community approaches in managing HEC. The saliant feature of all the IK components is that they are low cost, adaptable, variable, based on locally available resources and practical under specific rural socio economic circumstances. Such IK systems have developed in response to HEC management with no outside help for communities living in weakly integrated fragile environments. It should be noted that several indegenous approches such as

Final Report



killing or poisoning of elephants have detrimental effects on elephants, and according to informents such interventions have come into effect in recent history along with escallating HEC under widespred human settlements. Those IK componets can be brodly categprized into four types of interventions in managing HEC, namely enhanced human vigilance, establishement of physical barriers, exposure to deterrents and under extream situation removal of causative agent (killing of elephant) . Some examples are as follows;

Human vigilance: Gurding

Physical barriers: Fencing

Deterrents: Noise making

Killing : Shooting or poisoning

2. Indegenous knowlegde on less vulnerable crops

A community survey was conducted involving 125 respondents to record perceptions on crop damage. A list of commonly cultivted crops in family farms, based on village informents, were documented to facilitate comunity discussions. The degree of crop damage was coded as high, medium, low and no damage and that scaling style was found to be easy for the community members to express theire openion on crop damage levels due to elephants. The data gathered were analyzed to extract the list of plant species considered as priority 'no damage' crops. This was necessary for initiating the ground verification. Please see Annex 2 for list of crops in the area and frequency for ' no damage' category as expressed by respondents. There were some data sheets that had zero records for' no damage' category. Following are (Table 1) the priority crops that scored above cut off point 10 for frequency values of responding as ‘no damage’ crops.

Final Report



Table 1: Priority crops resistant to elephant damage

No damage"

BOTANICAL NAME Common name

Response

Frequency

1 Zingiber officinale Ginger 12

2 Curcuma domestica Turmeric 13

3 Piper longam Pepper 13

4 Citrus acida Lime 16

5 Citrus sinensis Orange 17

6 Lasia spinosa Kohila 20

7 Solanum indicum Thibbatu 34

8 Lycopersicon esculentum Tomato 13

9 Colacasia esculenta Taro 14

10 Abelmoschus esculentus Okra 15

11 Capsicum annum Chilli 36

3. Farming trials with less vulnerable crops

The priority crops mentioned above, except two species, were selected for cropping trials to see wether there will be significant crop damages by elephants when planted well exposed to elephant raids.Taro and Okra xcluded from farming trials since the community opposed and expressed theire dislike for planting due to some reasons. Raids by wild boars on Taro was the main reason for rejection while Okra is said to be a Chena crop and did not express willingness for planting in family farms. Also, the planting season was not suitable for Okra. In addition, Sesami was added as a crop outside the above list on the ground that it has some reputation for not raiding by elephants. This is also a Chena crop and did not come out as a crop in family farms during interviews with community members in early period of the project. The selection of more than three crops, far exceeding the number of crops originally planned for crop trials, was an additional precautionary measure taken for improving the probability of success under difficult socioeconomic and environmental conditions of the test site (see Annex 3). Frequant site visits and interaction with the community during the first

Final Report



quarter of the project enlightened us that farming trials are going to face many hurdles such as drought, damage by cattle and wild boares, lack of commitment of people for test planting activities during peak poverty times of the year which is often unmanageble with limited funding resources etc. Therefore, we, in consultation with CR/Born Free, selected 11 crop species from the above list as well as outside the list as candidates for trials, on the assumption that ground realities will not permit to test the full spectrum of elephant resistant crops as expected. The following table summerizes the important lessons lerned in planting activities in the context of HEC.

Table 2 : Narrative summery on crop trials.

Crops tested Outputs, comments and the lessons learned

Zingiber officinale (Ginger), a total of 1000 plants (10kg of planting rhizomes), were provided to 7 family farms, 200 plants were established in mid 2009 in one family farm and the rest in early 2010.

200 plants are grown well since they planted earliar. So far no elephant has raided the crop though the presence of elephants have noted in immediate vicinity. The rest of the planting materials need growing time to show the performance. Opportunistic observations for 9 months (July 2009‐March 2010) in other HEC locations with 500 ginger plants showed that were not depredated by elephants though visited the site. The results convinced the community that Ginger is a promising crop that can contribute to stabilize livelihoods under HEC.

Curcuma domestica (Turmeric), 700 plants were planted in 8 family farms. 150 plants were established in mid 2009 in one family farm and the rest in early 2010.

Turmeric has a one year growing cycle and needs more time to show better results. However, no young plants (30cm tall 150 plants) have been depredated by elephants. Other plants need growing time to show better perfomance. The present unusual drought and trampling by stray cattle have affected the growth of some plants. As community says, if elephants have any interest in Turmeric it is not difficult to find since it has a unique smell, even from young plants.

Opportunistic observations for 9 months (July 2009‐March 2010) in other HEC locations with 500 mature saffron bushes showed those were not depredated by elephants though visited the sites. The results convinced the community that Turmeric is a promising crop that can contribute to stabilize livelihoods under HEC.

Final Report



Piper longam (Pepper) 400 plants were planted in 4 family farms. 150 plants planted in late 2009 in one family farm and the rest in early 2010.

Pepper is a perennial crop and needs at least 3‐4 years to show better results once the growth is attained. However, no young plants (50 cm high) have been depredated by elephants. As community says, if elephants have any interest in pepper it is not difficult to find since it has a unique smell, even from young plants.

Opportunistic observations for 9 months (July 2009‐March 2010) in other HEC locations with 150 mature pepper bushes showed that have not been depredated by elephants though visited the sites. The results convinced the community that pepper is a promising crop that can contribute to stabilize livelihoods under HEC.

Citrus acida (Lime) 100 saplings were planted in 4 family farms in late 2009.

Lime is a perennial crop and needs at least 3‐4 years to show better results. However, no plants have been depredated by elephants. As community says, if elephants have any interest in Lime it is not difficult to find since it has a unique smell even from young plants. Usually elephants are much more sensitive to smell, and it does not hesitate to find even a small thing if it is something of special appeal.

Opportunistic observations for 9 months (July 2009‐March 2010) in other HEC locations with 50 mature lime trees showed that were not depredated by elephants though visited the site. The results convinced the community that lime is a promising crop that can contribute to stabilize livelihoods under HEC.

Citrus sinensis (Orange) opportunistic observations were taken on 20 plants already growing in family farms. Planting work failed due to a disease outbreak at nursery level.

Opportunistic observations for 9 months (July 2009‐March 2010) in other HEC locations with 20 mature lime trees showed that were not depredated by elephants though visited the site. The results convinced the community that lime is a promising crop that can contribute to stabilize livelihoods under HEC. Already they are getting a good income from orange. This is a long term crop and needs 4‐6 year for experimental verification

Final Report



Lasia spinosa (Kohila) 500 planting suckers were planted in two family farms in mid 2009.

The crop failed because in one plot it experienced severe drought during last year, and in the other plot, though there was some water for the plants, the farmer changed his mind to start cultivating paddy. Later the farmer disclosed that he did it because he was afraid that he will not be able to feed the family next few months, under the prevailing unusual drought, and hence circumstances forced him to cultivate paddy. This could have been avoided if a social welfare component included in the project focusing on poor farmers. Kohila is a typical wetland crop and always needs excessive soil moisture. Opportunistic observations for 9 months (July 2009‐March 2010) in another HEC location with 1000 Kohila plants showed that were not depredated by elephants though visited the site. The information convinced the community that Kohila is a promising crop that can contribute to stabilize livelihoods under HEC.

Solanum indicum (Thibbatu) 1100 plants were planted in 10 family farms. 350 plants were planted in 3 family farms in late 2009 and the rest in early 2010.

Thibbatu which were planted earliar have shown good results. No plant was depredated by elephnats though visited the site. Other plants need few months to attain maturity.

Opportunistic observations for 9 months (July 2009‐March 2010) in other HEC locations with 250 mature plants showed that were not depredated by elephants though visited the site. The results convinced the community that lime is a promising crop that can contribute to stabilize livelihoods under HEC. Already, Thibbatu is well established in Kivulawadiya village as a crop that can give a good harvest with no impact from elephants.

Lycopersicon esculentum (Tomato) 4800 plants were planted in one family farm in mid 2009.

No serious elephant damages were observed except in that an elephant had crossed over the plot of cultivation. Damage evidence shows that elephant had not used Tomato plants for feeding but some plants are physically damaged due to trampling. The results convinced the community that Tomato is a promising crop that can contribute to stabilize livelihoods under HEC. However, from organizational point of view, it is generaly accepted that the crop is heavily depended on agrochemicals and

Final Report



its popularization as a HEC resistant crop is questionable.

Capsicum annum (Chilli) 4000 plants in one family farm in mid 2009.

No elephant damages were observed during the cultivation season. This is a short cycle crop of 2‐4 months. The results convinced the community that Chilli is a promising crop that can contribute to stabilize livelihoods under HEC. However, from organizational point of view, it is generaly accepted that the crop is heavily depended on agrochemicals and its popularization as a HEC resistant crop is questionable.

Sesamum indicum (Sesami) 5kg of seed (small cerial) sawn covering 2 acres of land belonging to 4 family farms in early 2010.

This plant needs few months to grow and validate the suitability.

4. An overview of project related challanges and issues

Development of a good rapport with rural community is extreamly important in carrying out community based projects. It was a challanging task for the project team to make them no longer óutsiders’ for the village and carryout various activities such as collection of indegenous knowledge, mobilization of the community and establish cultivations; all within a period of one year .

This poverty ridden area has many social problems and sometime people beleive that they remain as ‘research objects’ rather than benificiaries. Limited funding made it impossible for the project to make a significant short term contribution to motivate the community. Some failiurs can be traced back to poverty driven human actions rather than negligance. Usually, when they are not getting an income from their crop (drought period and planting season), they are desperately looking for other income sources such as woking as labourers. This made almost impossible to put them back to feild and look after the HEC project.

The project team had to take time to understand the location specific social dynamics and indiviuals. The level of motivation of individual farmers fluctuated during the project period and influanced the project accordingly. Some times people could not commit for the project work if they had to attend other things such as paddy harvesting, religious ceremonies and unexpected family crises such as death of a relative or illness. Short term projects loaded with tight scheedule activities may not be in harmony with the cultuaral norms of the community, and it is not ehtically correct to impose project works by an external agency focussing only on project outputs.

Some crops that came up as less vulnerable crops from the survey studies, did not go well with the availble planting sites and the required microenvironent for each crop was different and therefore,

Final Report



repeated time consuming negotiations had to be made with land holders considering their preferences on crops, relative commitment and safety for the cultivation. Also, selection of benificiaries was a tricky issue since that it was important to make sure that those who did not benifitted should not be felt alianated, and no social friction has come up among those close‐knitted village families.

The cultivation activities had no escape from vagaries of nature; drought, crop damages by wild boars and stray cattle, and diseses. Motivating people with limited inputs to see that the project ends with good lessons was a daunting task.

5. Conclusions and reccomondations

Management of HEC demands multidimensional approaches touching upon physical, biological, social and institutional aspects of the issue. In this regard modification of rural agriculture and proper use of indigenous knowledge can contribute significantly in addressing the issues.

The present indigenous knowledge survey relevant to HEC management enabled documenting some 50 knowledge components and those IK components can be broadly categorized into four types of interventions in managing HEC, namely enhanced human vigilance, establishment of physical barriers and exposure to deterrents. Their potential use value needs to be further explored for sustainable management of HEC.

The perception study recorded some 11 priority crop varieties that can contribute to sustain rural livelihoods despite HEC. The priority crops are; Zingiber officinale (Ginger), Curcuma domestica (Turrmeric), Piper longam (Pepper), Citrus acida (Lime), Citrus sinensis (Orange), Lasia spinosa (Kohila), Solanum indicum (Thibbatu), Lycopersicon esculentum (Tomato), Colacasia esculenta (Taro), Abelmoschus esculentus (Okra) and Capsicum annum (Chilli).

A community based grass root level crop planting experimentation to validate that the above crops are not depredated by elephants was conducted in Kivulawadiya village. The results are encouraging and the promising crops include Zingiber officinale (Ginger), Curcuma domestica (Turmeric), Piper longam (Pepper), Citrus acida (Lime), Lasia spinosa (Kohila), Solanum indicum (Thibbatu), Lycopersicon esculentum (Tomato), and Capsicum annum (Chilli). It should be noted here that only three crops were supposed to be validated through experiment as per the project document, but the number of crops were increased for better results and reducing experimental risk. Long term experimentation will further consolidate the site specific crops that can sustain livelihoods despite HEC.

The project site, Kivulewadiya, is an ideal location with potential to emerge as a farmer field school for managing HEC in the intermediate zone of Sri Lanka through agricultural entry points; with ultimate objective of influancing policy. From piloting to scaling up of such socio‐technical innovations needs careful nurturing, and essentially the approach should be an evolving process that

Final Report



may involve lot of thinking together and learning together while caring for the sensitivities of this fragile community.

References

Anonymous, 1962. A report on a survey of the resourses of the Mahaweli Ganga basin: Part I (text). Prepared by Hunting survey corporation Ltd., Toronto, Canada, in co‐operation with the surveyer general of Ceylon. Govt.Press, Colombo.

Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. Tight, M., 1999, How to research, Open University press, UK.

Cooray, P.G., 1961. Geology of the country around Rangala. Dept.of Minerology. Govt.Press, Colombo, Ceylon. Mem. 2: pp.1‐138.

Desai, A.A., 1998. Management strategies for conservation of elephants and mitigation of human‐elephant conflict.Technical Report of an FAO Project, Department of Wildlife Conservation, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

De Silva, M., De Silva, P.K., 2007, The Sri Lankan Elephant,,Its Evolution, Ecology and Conservation, Wildlife Heritage Trust, Colombo.

Ekanayake, S.P., 1994. A phytosociological study of the semi‐evergreen forests of Knuckles and Uda Walawe, Sri Lanka, MPhil thesis, Department of Botany, University of Peradeniya.

Harding, S., 1998,Women, Science, and Society. Science, Vol 281:1599‐1600.

Jayewardene, J., 1994. Elephant Drives in Sri Lanka, Gajah 13: 30–39

Janssen. R., Roy Brouwer, R., Heider, W., Beardmore, B., Fraser, S, Gunaratne, LHP, Ayoni, N., Premaratne, P., Nanayakkara, L., Bandara, D., 2008, Human‐elephant conflict and poverty in Sri Lanka', a project report available at

http://www.ivm.vu.nl/go.cfm/linkID/D3EEA4FC‐1279‐D040‐8BAF9D1D9483AF0F

and www.prem‐online.nl , accessed on 19.211.2008

Kannangara, R.B.K., 1988. Agro‐ecological regions. In: SOMESEKARAM, T., (chief ed.). National atlas of Sri Lanka, Survey Dept., Colombo, Sri Lanka, pp.44‐45.

Kumaran, T.V., Dissanayake, L., Norbet, S.A., 2007, Indegenous knowledge systems and sustainabilty, Kumaran Book house, Chennai.

Muller‐Domboise, D., 1968. Ecogeographic analysis of climatic map of Ceylon with particular reference to vegetation. The Ceylon Forester (N.S), 8 (3‐4): pp.39‐58 + Climatic map at 1:506,880.

Perera, B.M.A.O., Abeygunawardena, H., Abeygunawardena, I.S., Wanigasundera, W.A.D.P., Gunatilake, J., Gunaratne, L.H.P., Jayasooriya, A.P., Pallegama, P.S., Munasinghe, M.N.D., Alahakoon, A.M.G.K.K., Kandepola, J., Jayawardana, D.T., Gunasekara, H.K., Nirusha Ayoni, V.D.

Final Report



and Premasinghe, S.S., 2007. Relative abundance and movement pattern of wild elephants, assessment of the level of human‐elephant conflict and effectiveness of management strategies in the North‐Western Wildlife Region. Wildlife Research Symposium, Protected Area Management and Wildlife Conservation Project, Department of Wildlife Conservation, Colombo, Sri Lanka. p 10–13.

Santiapillai, C. and Jackson, P., 1990. The Asian Elephant: An Action Plan for its Conservation. IUCN. http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/sgs/mammals.htm

Santiapillai, C. and de Silva, M., 1994. An action plan for the conservation and managementof elephant (Elephas maximus) in Sri Lanka. Gajah 13: 1–24.

Survey Department, 1988, National Atlas of Sri Lanka, Survey Department, Colombo.

WNPS (Wildlife and nature protection society of Sri Lanka ), 2007, Can you imagine Sri Lanka without the elephants?, Loris, Vol.24, WNPS, Colombo.

Unpublished, 2008, Results of preliminary field surveys conducted to gather baseline information on increasing Human Elephant Conflicts as a result of the Kaluganga Right Bank Development Program, Sri Lanka Wildlife Conservation Society of Sri Lanka, www. slwcs.org

Final Report



Annex 1: Indigenous knowledge components useful in managing HEC

Indigenous knowledge componets in managing HEC Source

1 The banks of Mahaweli ganga and its tributaries from Manampitiya downwards have been used for tobacco cultivation. These farms prevent elephants from reaching the river for water.

1

2 The activities of fishermen of Senanayaka Samudra sometimes affect elephants. Elephants when entering resrviors may foul the nets set in the lake‐littoral by the fishermen, and the latter may prevent elephants from entering reserviors, at least the area where nets are set.

1

3 In selecting forest areas for chena cultivation, people of early days were careful not to interfear with traditional migratory routes of elephants.

1

4 Chena cultivation in approriate location helped reducing HEC. Elephants find nurishing foods in abandoned chena. There would have been little HEC after the harvest was collected and as the farmers lived in villages away from their chena.

1

5 In early days chenas were protected by fences that were ‘little more than lines of reeds loosely fastened together’, and a single watcher; still it was effective in protecting chena from elephants

2

6 When a group of elephants enter a rice or chena cultivation , the damage caused is obviously more extensive than that caused by solitary male.

1

7 According to farmers affected by elephants, the same adult male would repetedly come to the same area despite being chased away on each occasion, whereas groups when chased away would usually move on to an another area.

1

8 Villagers claim that it is relatively easy to chase away elephants before they enter a cultivation, but it is very difficult to do so once they are in.

1

9 Elephants destroy cash crops such as rice and other cerials , pulses and vegetable more frequently than coconut and bananas.

1

10 Elephants usually raids rice fields in January when the grain is maturing and continue their raids upto about April until harvesting is completed.

1

11 Some elephants try to get the stored harvest and hence cause damage to houses.

1

Final Report



12 Elephants raids vegetables, chilli and onions and not tobacco. 1

13 The young trees of perment crops such as coconut and jak as well as bananas may be attacked throughout the year, but particulerly when other crops are not available.

1

14 Mango trees are attacked during the fruiting season of May‐June and November‐December. If they can not get at the mangoes, elephants shake the trees or branches, until fruits drops to the ground.

1

15 During the rainy months, most elephants stay in forest areas as they could find sufficient food and water. In the subsequant months, elephants would raid rice and chena crops rather than causing property damage.

1

16 Larger groups do not invade vallages. according to villagers, even if a larger group invades a village or crop area, it could be easily driven away because the adult females fear for their infants and juveniles.

1

17 People must desist from travelling alone at night in known problem areas. 1

18 Carrying a powerful electrical torch at night would help to see an elephant and avoid it. The sudden flash of bright light is also likely to scare the elephant causing it to retreat.

1

19 People should modify their farming practices so that elephant problems could be minimized.

1

20 The farmer should stay at his cultivation (chena) at night and make loud noises to scare away elephants. This is usually done from a small watch hut (‘Pela’) built on a tree within the cultivation. A fire is usually kept burning at the foot of the ladder leading to the hut. The neibouring watchers keep vigilance and communicate with each other by reciting age‐old poems (‘Pelkavi’). Such traditions must be encouraged.

1

21 Where possible, chenas should be situated adjecent or close to each other, and not separated by patches of forests. This arrangement may need fewer watchers and no place for elephants to hide in.

1

22 The practice of protecting chenas by stout fences should also be encouraged. If there is a known elephant path care must be taken not to block it.

2

23 Tennet (1859) noted on one occasion rice feilds in the vicinity of a ‘wewa’ enclosed with a fence of small sticks where there was a passage of ten to twenty wide was left between each feild, to permit the wild elephants to make their way to the water. Also noted that no problems from elephants in

1

Final Report



that situation.

24 Plants useful to man but which the elephants do not like, such as lemon and orange, could be grown in homestead gardens, in order to discourage elephants from raiding.

3

25 Disturbance shooting using a locally made shot gun called 'galkatas' is done in NE area of Knuckles region. Usually shooting is done at abdomen region of the elephant to inflict non‐lethal wounds.

3

26 Avoidance of cultivating lands during the peak HEC season June‐September of the year.

3

27 Vigilance and guarding of paddy fields and other crop lands staying overnight on tree top houses. Usually shouting and noise making is done to chase elephants.

3

28 Lighting of fire close to cultivations distracts elephants. 3

29 Noise making using fire crackers and locally made tool called 'poasacchuwa' or 'wedimitiya' that use gunpowder.

3

30 Non‐electric fencing lines erected using strings, barbed wire or such material discourage elephants coming into crop lands.

3

31 Poisoning is done using agrochemicals. Poison is mixed with salt and inserted into a pumpkin and often result in death once it is eaten by an elephant. Some times cotton towel soaked in that mixture is hanged on a tree close to elephant paths and it is said that elephants put that towel into the mouth to taste salt and get poisoned.

3

32 Local people are capable of detecting close by elephants through their sensitivity to smell. This is very useful in preventing any threat to life and crops.

3

33 People would know the proximity, presence of elephants or preferred localities of elephants by observing their dung. Fresh dung with unique smell is a clear warning signal indicating the presence of elephant in close proximity.

3

34 Planting of line of Palmyrah trees at 1m gap surrounding the homegarden discourage elephants entering the settlement (a practice in Panama)

3

Final Report



35 When an elephant seen by people at a safe distance, say 50m or more, people keep on ""talking"' with elephants. This makes elephant puzzled and then slowly go away.

3

36 Planting trees like coconut close to houses atract elephants. 3

37 Surrounding areas of paddy feilds should be open areas free of forest vegetation. Farmers can sight the approaching elephant and they can be chased away before entering paddy feilds.

3

38 Line of white polythene or coloured string encircling the planting area will discourage elephants crossing through.

39 Pepper, Ginger, Tumeric, Coffee, Orange, Cashewnut, Mango, Areca nut crop combination in a plot of land is more benificial under HEC.

3

40 Plot of Lasia spinosa (Kohila gaala) in a plot of abandoned paddy feild or area of a natural spring provide subsistance food, protection to spring, and the crop is free of elephant damage.

3

41 Rags soaked in donky urine needs to be hanged in various places surrounding paddy feilds to dicourage elephants comming into paddy fields (As informed by Mr.Sameeu, Galewela)

3

42 Lighted kerosene lanterns (or anything that make light) discourage elephants comming closer

3

43 During the mango season elephants try to pluck mangoes by shaking the tree, but this happens only when there is a shortage of food.(in Puttlam)

3

44 Alarm systems are erected in chena using metal scrap. Shaking will produce a noise to scare away elephants.

3

45 Farm tractors both two wheels and four wheels are a good mode of transport when travelling through lonely paths. The noise scare away elephnats and makes it a safer journy, especially for young ones attending schools. Children have added vulnerability to elephnt attack.

3

46 Hanging of tyres along paths used by elephants or around watch huts discourage elephants comming closer.

3

47 Partly burned fire wood used for burning dead wildboars are hangened onto fences of farm plots and that discourage elephant raids.

3

48 Partly burd fire wood used for burning dead wildboars are burned in farm plots and that discourage elephant raids.

3

Final Report



49 Parts of skeletons of dead elephants are hanged around farms and that said to scare away elephants.

3

50 Elephnats are attracted by salt at home. 3

51 "Huluaththa" or the burning coconut leave with flame is ideal in chasing away elephants. 3

Sources:

1 De Silva, M., De Silva, P.K., (2007)

2 Tennent (1859) cited in De Silva, M., De Silva, P.K., (2007)

3 Present survey

Final Report



Annex 2: Crops planted in family farms and their score for 'no damage'' category.

”No damage"

BOTANICAL NAME Common name

Response

frequency

1 Abelmoschus esculentus Okra 15

2 Aegle marmelos Beli 3

3 Aerva lanata Polpala 0

4 Allocasia indica Taro 0

5 Alternanthera sessilis Mukunuwanna 0

6 Amaranthus paniculatus Thampala 3

7 Amaranthus viridis Kurathampala 4

8 Anacardium occidentale Cashewnut 1

9 Ananas sativus Pineapple 1

10 Annona muricata Soursop 1

11 Arachis hypogaea Ground nut 3

12 Artocarpus altilis Bread fruit 3

13 Artocarpus heterophyllus Jak 1

14 Basella alba Ceylon spinach 0

15 Bennincasa hispida Ash pumpkin 0

16 Brassica caulorapa Nokoal 0

17 Brassica juncea Mustard 2

18 Brassica oleracea Cabbage 0

19 Capsicum annum Chilli 36

20 Carica papaya Papaya 0

Final Report



21 Cassia tora Thora 3

22 Centella asiatica Gotukola 0

23 Cinnamomum verum Cinnmon 2

24 Citrus acida Lime 16

25 Citrus sinensis Orange 17

26 Citrus aurantifolia Lemon 1

27 Coffea arabica Coffee 1

28 Colacasia esculenta Taro 14

29 Colocynthis citrullus Water melon 0

30 Cucumis anguria Ghirkin 0

31 Cucumis melo var conomon Chinese whit cucumber 1

32 Cucumis sativus Cucumber 0

33 Cucurbita maxima Pumpkin 0

34 Curcuma domestica Turmeric 13

35 Dioscorea bulbifera Udala 0

36 Dolichos biflorus Horse gram 6

37 Dregea volubilis Kirianguna 0

38 Elatteria cardamomum Cardamom 1

39 Eleusine coracana Finger millet 0

40 Eugenia caryophyllata Clove 1

41 Hemedesmus indicus Iramusu 0

42 Ipomoea aquatica Kankung 0

43 Ipomoea batatas Sweet potato 6

44 Lagenaria siceraria Labu 0

45 Lasia spinosa Kohila 20

Final Report



46 Luffa acutangula Riged gourd 0

47 Lycopersicon esculentum Tomato 13

48 Mangifere indica Mango 1

49 Manihot utilissima Cassava 5

50 Momordica charantia Bitter gourd 3

51 Momordica dioica Thumbakarawila 1

52 Moringa oleifera Moringa 1

53 Murraya koenigii Curry leaves 1

54 Musa sapientum Ash plantain 0

55 Nicotinia tabacum Tobacco 1

56 Pandanus amaryllifolius Rampe 1

57 Phaseolus aureus Green gram 6

58 Phaseolus sp. Kola Me 1

59 Phaseolus vulgaris Bean 1

60 Piper betle Betle 3

61 Piper longam Pepper 13

62 Psidium guajava Guava 2

63 Psophocarpus tetragonolobus Wing bean 4

64 Punica granatum Pomegrenate 0

65 Raphanus sativus Radish 0

66 Sacccharum officinarum Suger cane 0

67 Sesbania gradiflora Kathurumurnga 0

68 Sessamum indicum Sesami 5

69 Solanum indicum Thibbatu 34

70 Solanum melongina Brinjal 6

Final Report



71 Solanum surattense Thalanabatu 1

72 Spondias pinnata Amberella 0

73 Trichosanthes anguina Snake gourd 0

74 Vigna catiang Cowpea 4

75 Vigna marina Long bean 6

76 Vigna sp. Wel undu 1

77 Zea mays Maiz 3

78 Zingiber officinale Ginger 12

Final Report



Annex 3 : A visual outline of the project

Subsistance family farms are usually surrounded by jungle where elephants find a safe abode

Living with elephants in the margin of the forest is an age old practice. Traditional tree top watch huts are usful in chasing away elephants comming to raid crops at night.

Final Report



Farmers of the older generation are the repositories of indeginous knowledge

Women folk are equal partners of traditional farming system

Final Report



A paddy field, a wetland cropping system, deprediated by elephnts during previous night

A plot of Casava deprediated by elephants. This drought resistant highland crop considerably sustain the energy needs of a family, and also much sort after by elephants too.

Final Report



A traditional farmer in his watch hut protecting the crop from intruding wild animals; elephants, wildboars, birds, porcupines, hares, monkeys etc.etc.

Prparing the ground for cultivation of Kohila.

Final Report



Easy going casual conversatons with village elders, who have survived HEC for many years, are the best way of recording indegenous knowlege pertaining to management of HEC. The pepper

cultivation in the background is a time tested crop adaptation by the community in response to HEC.

A farmer enthusistically showing Thibbatu crop thriving in elephant roaming lands.

Final Report



Community farmer scientists receiving some planting material for community based experiment in testing the validity crops that can survive HEC

Tomato cultivation in a plot of fallow paddy feild. Paddy fields are located in valley bottoms of village landscape with patches of forest and settlement areas, and they are often used for cultivating

vegetables in periods of low rain or irrigation water is not adequate for paddy.

Final Report



A part of the village audiance of an interactive session for disseminating the lessons learned in implementing agricultural solution for mitigating HEC

Severe drought and lack of irrigation are making agro based livelihoods more vulnerable to failures. Also, drought is often partly the driving force behind HEC, cattle damage, crop failiure and poverty.

Final Report



The voice of children amids HEC is often unheared of in grandiose national level projects in mitigating HEC. They remain as silent suffrers at the receiving end of crop failiure, disruption of

schooling due to “road blocks” by elephants and traumatic experince of encounters with elephants.

Final Report



Annex 4: PROJECT PROPOSAL

Project title

Mitigation of Human – Elephant Conflict (HEC) through introduction of less vulnerable, innovative agricultural production systems ‐ A pilot project in Laggala ‐ Pallegama DS division, central province of Sri Lanka.

Implementing agency: National Environmental Forum

Contact information

Full name and address: National Environmental Forum,

University Viharaya, University of Peradeniya,

Telephone : +94 773 207010

E‐mail address: [email protected] / [email protected]

Website: www.neflk.org

Contact person: Mr. Vasantha Ranasignhe

Total project cost/ duration: LKR 600,000/ one year.

Project Leader: Sarath Ekanayake (B.Sc., M.Phil.)

Project summary

Crop damage is one of the serious problems associated with HEC in Laggala Pallegama DS division in Matale District, Sri Lanka. This has often resulted in elephant deaths or injuries and severe impacts on agro based livelihoods of poor farmers. Over the years several methods have been used in the area to mitigate HEC with limited success, and HEC continues to be a problem. The present project attempts to mitigate the HEC through an agricultural entry point as an innovative approach. The project assumes that HEC resistant crops that are less attractive to elephants will contribute to secure the livelihood of local farmers by providing a source of income despite HEC. This would make HEC less severe to local people and similarly a reduction in deaths or injuries to both elephants and people. A field survey will be carried out to document the traditional knowledge on crop varieties which are less attractive to elephants. The most promising three crop varieties will be selected and cultivated in 5 pilot sites for field validation. The promising crops will be further tested in 10 more plots for scaling up. The knowledge base accumulated over the project period will be shared with a wider audience.

Final Report



Introduction

The Asian elephant (Elephus maximus) is of global ecological importance and classified as endangered on the IUCN Red List of threatened animals. Sri Lankan elephants (Elephus maximus maximus) are a sub‐species of Asian elephant, and have been of great cultural, aesthetic and economic significance to the people of Sri Lanka for more than 25 centuries. However, these elephants are now threatened by habitat loss and fragmentation. Both elephants and people are competing for the same scarce land and water resources. In recent years, an average of 100‐150 elephants and 60 people have died annually in Sri Lanka due to intense human‐elephant conflict (HEC). Almost all of these elephants are shot, poisoned or wounded by farmers in defense of, or in retaliation for damaged crops, property and life. HEC has been intensified by the spread of agriculture into elephant habitats. Elephants have been ‘squeezed’ into protected areas by this habitat loss and conflict inevitably follows as elephants have less area in which to feed and roam. Elephants have large biological ranges and migrate seasonally to follow the availability of water and foods, often traveling great distances. More than 70% of elephants in Sri Lanka live outside park boundaries, thus protected areas alone cannot ensure the long‐term survival of the elephants. Displacement by civil war in the Northwestern and Mahaweli regions has also led some elephants to turn to crop raiding. (Janssen et al 2008).

Many studies in the past have highlighted the need for conservation of wild elephants and alleviation of HEC, which are inter‐related (Santiapillai and Jackson 1990; Santiapillai and de Silva, 1994; Jayawardena, 1994; Desai, 1998). Based on the recommendations of these studies, the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC) has attempted various strategies to conserve the elephant and also to protect the farmers and their crops in the areas surrounding forest reserves. These include: (a) establishment of new national parks, elephant corridors and conservation areas; (b) habitat enrichment; (c) capture and translocation of problem bulls; (d) collective drives of herds to protected areas; (e) electrical and biological fencing; and (f) provision of assistance and thunder flashes to villagers to drive away animals that invade their homesteads. Some of these attempts have been successful while others have failed to produce the expected results. However, the absence of comprehensive data on the ecology, ranging behavior, resource utilization and feed preferences of wild elephants has hampered the development of conservation strategies in the country. Moreover, it is necessary come up with scientifically sound HEC mitigation approaches applicable under low external inputs and manageable to local rural communities. Along these lines, the present proposed project attempt to find community based screening of less vulnerable crop species, suitable agronomic practices and the associated traditional knowledge system in partial mitigation of the HEC through low cost and non destructive win‐win approach.

Geographical setting and relevant recent studies.

The focus area, Laggal ‐ Pallegama DS division (Matale district, Central Province), is part of the HEC zone of Sri Lanka located situated close to the Wasgomuwa National Park ‐ renown for its wild elephant population. Mean sea level is 100m‐500m and receives mean annual rainfall of 2000mm‐2500mm (Survey Department, 1988).

Final Report



A summery of recent study by Wildlife Conservation Society of Sri Lanka (unpublished report, 2008) in the area can be given as follows to understand the local situation.

There are 37 Grama Niladhari Divisions (GNDs) in the Laggala Divisional Secretary Division of the Matale District in the Central Province. A random sample survey was conducted in 8 Grama Niladhari Divisions (Pallegama, Gonawala, Minirankatiya, Rambukoluwa, Gangahenwala, Karandamulla, Halminiya and Ranamuregama). Seven Grama Niladhari Officers and 49 villagers from the area had interviewed and all of them were Sinhalese. The average number of sub‐villages is two. The respondents interviewed were predominantly male (95%), and were between the age groups of 26 to 75. There are approximately 99 households per GND, with 74 permanent, 16 temporary, and 9 mud structures. The majority (94%) of the settlements is legal and 6% are illegal. The oldest GNDs are Pallegama and Gonawala, which are nearly 400 years old. The other GNDs were established after 1900. The main ethnic group in the area is Sinhalese. The majority religion is Buddhism. Most of the roads are either gravel or dirt and in extremely poor condition. The Hettipola‐Naula‐Dambulla B road is the main transportation artery through the area. This road is in very bad condition mainly due to it being frequently used by convoys of heavy trucks transporting sand from the Mahaweli River. Only 34% of families have access to electricity and 17% to phone services (mostly mobiles and CDMA). There are very poor healthcare facilities available and the Pallegama

There’s only one hospital for the whole area. The initial surveys show that the average distance to obtain healthcare for most community members is 5 kilometers by road. In addition, most of these villages have very irregular and poor public transport systems, which in most areas do not exist at all, especially in Rambukoluwa and Gangahenwala. Ninety nine percent of the people have been residing in the same community since their birth, and only 1% has immigrated as a result of marriage. The average monthly income of randomly interviewed villagers was Rs.5965 (approximately US$55). For 37% of families in the study area the average monthly income was in the range of Rs.1000 to 2500.

Human Elephant conflict has begun to increase since recently in the GNDs that were surveyed. Of the total number of villagers that were interviewed, 82% of the families have experienced elephant raids. Ninety fiver percent were crop damages, 3% were house damages and 2% were human casualties. According to information that had been gathered from 2005‐2007 the annual average crop damage in land area is around 6 acres. Paddy and banana are the most raided crops. Each village annually loses Rs.12, 240 due to HEC. Two elephants had been killed in the area, one in 2002 at Katumanaoya and the other in 2006 in Rambukoluwa‐Sawanpitiya. Both areas are nearby to Kaluganga. According to the villagers, elephant raids are seasonal and they are most intense from the months of May through October which is the dry season. The following areas were identified by villagers as places where elephant gather in large numbers. .

Final Report



Place and closest GND

Madugaslanda forest ‐ Rambukoluwa GND

Hobarakada,Mannakatiya ‐ Gangahenwala GND

Moragahaulpatha ‐ Karandamulla GND

Athkimbulawala forest ‐ Akarahadiya GND

Ambanmulla,Balagollayaya ‐ Minirankatiya GND

Galwala,Katumanna ‐ Halminiya GND

Kiulpotha ‐ Gonawala GND

Makulmada ‐ Pallegama GND

Galgedawala,Dagavilla ‐ Madumana GND

Hamagahaulpatha,Kotakumbura ‐ Ranamuragama GND

Project goal:

To maximize rural agricultural outputs, human well‐being and positive attitude towards wild elephants among rural communities as a partial solution to HEC.

Main objectives:

a. To collate indigenous knowledge on crop varieties and agricultural practices which are less vulnerable to elephant raids, and are useful in sustaining rural livelihoods.

b. To validate likely HEC resistant models of agricultural practices through community based field research.

c. To pilot test small scale agricultural livelihood model (s) appropriate to HEC localities.

Methodology:

Data collection on the subject will be done through literature survey, consultation of community informants and professionals. Field surveys will be done to collect site specific data on traditional agricultural knowledge on HEC resistant crops and farming practices. Adult farmers, over 40 years age, who are permanent residents of Laggala Pallegama DS division and have been involved with local level farming activities for over 20 years will be selected by probability sampling for interviewing. Interviews will be done by a local person, trained specially for this task, working under a field supervisor. Through community perception, three priority crops will be screened for piloting.

Final Report



Cropping trials will be placed in selected home gardens subjected to most severe HEC related crop damage as per community perception. Agronomic operations will be handled by relevant land holders according to guidelines provided. Performance of the crops in the context of HEC will be evaluated periodically.

Activity plan

Proposed activities under objective (a)

Timeline 2009

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1. Literature survey on relevant indigenous knowledge on less vulnerable promising crop varieties and agricultural practices

2. Community consultation and field based gathering of data (including audio visual capturing) in the central province of Sri Lanka for compilation of indigenous agricultural knowledge on HEC mitigation.

3. Consultation of professionals and indigenous practitioners including telephone interviews.

4. Report synthesis including preparation indigenous knowledge data base on mitigating HEC through agricultural interventions.

5. Public event for the sharing of the lessons learned.

Proposed activities under objective (b)

6. Community awareness on the project and selection of community agricultural researchers as leaders for field testing.

7. Establishment of HEC resistant experimental agricultural production models, based on (a) 4 result, in five land plots belonging to different farmers in Laggala – Pallegama DS division.

8. Community mediated evaluation and monitoring of the performance of potential HEC resistant experimental agricultural production models.

9. Production of audio visual awareness material on the project.

10. Report synthesis on performance of possible HEC resistant agricultural practices.

11. Public event for sharing the lessons learned.

Proposed activities under objective (c)

12. Community consultation and selection of another set of 10 sites in the Laggala‐Pallegama DS division for adoption of superior HEC resistant agricultural practices based on lessons learned under (b)5.

13. Field level scaling up of superior HEC resistant agricultural interventions in ten sites.

14. Public event and wider circulation of the lessons learned.

Final Report



Project deliverables and their significance

(a) Key project deliverables

• Indigenous knowledge base on mitigating HEC through agricultural interventions.

• Enhancements in the quality of engagements of the HEC affected rural community in mitigating the HEC.

• Field tested cropping system useful in improving rural livelihoods despite HEC.

(b) The key questions that the deliverables are likely to address

The deliverables are loaded with several solutions for key questions common to HEC areas.

• What are the ‘HEC low impact’ or ‘no impact’ crop species that can sustain livelihoods in poverty ridden HEC localities?

• How HEC intensity and fluctuations along the time line in a give location can be strategically used in adopting crop cultivation practices?

• How low risk co‐habitation of elephants and humans in fringing settlements of forested areas can be improved through community empowerment, better awareness, transfer of traditional knowledge and application of farmer field research?

(c) Significance of the questions addressed in the context of HEC

The destructive effects of HEC in Sri Lanka are many and varied. This has been highlighted in many scientific papers, policy documents, mass media and professional fora and need no further elaboration of the gravity of the problem and urgency of remedial actions. Several methods such as provision of more land areas for elephants, habitat enrichment, translocation of problem elephants, electrical and biological fencing and chasing of elephants using thunder flashes have used in mitigating HEC with limited success. The general trend is that destructive effects of HEC are on the increase; human deaths, human injuries, elephant deaths, elephant injuries, property damage and crop damage. (Perera et al 2007). Farmers affected by HEC tend to consider elephant as a serious pest. This trend has to be reversed and especially call for low cost approaches amenable to poor rural communities. Use of HEC resistant crop varieties coupled with strategic farming practices and quality engagement of the communities will definitely be a significant contribution in reducing the burden of HEC by enhancing the livelihood opportunities. Moreover, this would inculcate a positive attitude towards elephants among communities.

Final Report



(d) The innovative elements of the proposed deliverables

Over the years several methods mentioned above have been used in controlling HEC with limited success. In addition to such ‘hard’ approaches, traditional ‘soft’ approaches like appropriate agricultural interventions have not been explored adequately. This has been mentioned even in the National Policy for the conservation and Management of the Wild Elephants in Sri Lanka (cited in WNPS, 2007).

Meanwhile, the problem of crop damage also remains unsolved or partially solved in most problematic locations making it hard for the farmer community. General observation shows HEC resistant crops are being used by farmers in some isolated localities based on traditional perceptions. However their efficacy has not been documented systematically. Usually they consider pepper, gingerly, Citrus varieties and Cashew nut are promising crops that are less vulnerable to crop damage by elephants. However, the focus on promoting livelihood supporting crops not attracted by elephants is minimum or not at all in many HEC locations. Literature studies and verbal information from experts make it clear that no systematic attempt has been made to understand the indigenous agricultural knowledge system, the crops and farming systems suitable for HEC area. As an innovative component, this project attempt to find agricultural interventions to make HEC less severe for the poor rural community.

(d) Possibility of replication

Although this project is focused on proposing some potential cropping practices for Laggala‐ Pallegama DS division, the project can be adopted and replicated in similar lines in many dry zone locations in order to find the site appropriate HEC resistant cropping systems.

(e) Learning opportunities

Exploration of this lesser known knowledge area on HEC resistant cropping system would be interesting and highly practical in partially reconciling the rights of wild elephants and rights of poor farmers. Along with the ever expanding human settlements in the country, it is very essential to introduce reconciliation techniques for co‐habitation of wild elephants and humans in proximity to each other. This project attempts to set the groundwork for wider learning opportunities in modifying and diversifying anthropogenic habitats through ‘soft’ and low cost community based approaches in mitigating HEC.

Final Report



Budget

Cost item Units Cost LKR

Personnel – Field officer LKR 15,000 x 12 months 180,000

Community meetings Six events x LKR 5000 30,000

Field survey Home rent LKR 1000 x 12 12,000

Supplies, materials and rentals Audio visual equipment rental for 6 months 2days per month at LKR 2000

24,000

Agronomic operations Maintenance of 5 initial plots at LKR 3,000/month x 8 months

120,000

Scaling up 10 plots at LKR 3,000/month x 4 months

120,000

Travel and transportation lump sum 70,000

Project‐specific administration LKR 5000 per month for 12 months 60,000

Total 616,000

Funds required from BFF 300,000

Matching funds from NEF 316,000

Final Report



References

Janssen. R., Roy Brouwer, R., Heider, W., Beardmore, B., Fraser, S, Gunaratne, LHP, Ayoni, N., Premaratne, P., Nanayakkara, L., Bandara, D., 2008, Human‐elephant conflict and poverty in Sri Lanka', a project report available at

http://www.ivm.vu.nl/go.cfm/linkID/D3EEA4FC‐1279‐D040‐8BAF9D1D9483AF0F

and www.prem‐online.nl , accessed on 19.211.2008

Santiapillai, C. and Jackson, P., 1990. The Asian Elephant: An Action Plan for its Conservation. IUCN. http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/sgs/mammals.htm

Santiapillai, C. and de Silva, M., 1994. An action plan for the conservation and managementof elephant (Elephas maximus) in Sri Lanka. Gajah 13: 1–24.

WNPS (Wildlife and nature protection society of Sri Lanka ), 2007, Can you imagine Sri Lanka without the elephants?, Loris, Vol.24, WNPS, Colombo.

Jayewardene, J., 1994. Elephant Drives in Sri Lanka, Gajah 13: 30–39

Desai, A.A., 1998. Management strategies for conservation of elephants and mitigation of human‐elephant conflict.Technical Report of an FAO Project, Department of Wildlife Conservation, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Survey Department, 1988, National Atlas of Sri Lanka, Survey Department, Colombo.

Unpublished, 2008, Results of preliminary field surveys conducted to gather baseline information on increasing Human Elephant Conflicts as a result of the Kaluganga Right Bank Development Program, Sri Lanka Wildlife Conservation Society of Sri Lanka, www. slwcs.org

Perera, B.M.A.O., Abeygunawardena, H., Abeygunawardena, I.S., Wanigasundera, W.A.D.P., Gunatilake, J., Gunaratne, L.H.P., Jayasooriya, A.P., Pallegama, P.S., Munasinghe, M.N.D., Alahakoon, A.M.G.K.K., Kandepola, J., Jayawardana, D.T., Gunasekara, H.K., Nirusha Ayoni, V.D. and Premasinghe, S.S., 2007. Relative abundance and movement pattern of wild elephants, assessment of the level of human‐elephant conflict and effectiveness of management strategies in the North‐Western Wildlife Region. Wildlife Research Symposium, Protected Area Management and Wildlife Conservation Project, Department of Wildlife Conservation, Colombo, Sri Lanka. p 10–13.

Documents

Mitigation of Human – Elephant Conflict (HEC) through introduction of less vulnerable, innovative agricultural production systems – A pilot project in Laggala - Pallegama DS division,