PRINCIPLES of Human-Elephant Conflict

EDITORS Note:

There should be a clear and succinct definition of human elephant conflict prior t o laying out a set of “principals” of Human Elephant Conflict. For example today human elephant conflict has transcendent from being a purely wildlife management problem to one of the biggest socio-economic issues faced by rural communities in elephant areas in the Asian elephant range countries. This fact needs to be encapsulated within the context of the current definition of HEC.

In setting up the review publication it is also important to identify the linkages between HEC, poverty, human health, disaster management[1] and the environment.

The AsESG recommends prioritizing conservation-based approaches for mitigation of Human-Elephant Conflict over animal rights based approaches (i.e. those approaches that prioritize individuals to the detriment of population survival). An Example is killing/removing frequent raiding males to reduce animosity and therefore threats to whole population and its habitat.

1. In each HEC situation the AsESG recommends use of the mitigation technique that is the least detrimental to the elephant population.

2. Need to be deal with the causes of HEC rather than the symptoms.

3. We recommend that HEC mitigation is always conducted using an evidence-based/adaptive management approach (i.e. one based on monitoring of the effects of the method(s) on HEC rates and elephants).

4. Addressing HEC requires a landscape-level approach.

5. HEC mitigation is not only responsibility of the States’ wildlife/conservation authorities (e.g. Forest or Wildlife Depts.) but also the private sector, donor agencies, banks, communities/individual farmers.

6. There is no permanent solution to HEC, instead human-elephant coexistence requires long-term commitment to managing elephant populations, human land use, and human behavior/attitudes.

7. There is no single mitigation technique that will be applicable in all HEC situations.

8. The resolution of HEC should not always be perceived as a problem that needs mitigation – it should also be perceived as a problem that can be managed through adaptive and preemptive strategies

9. Some additional comments in regard to linking HEC with disaster risk management: When taken from the context that the cumulative impact of HEC in all of the 13 Asian elephant range countries is an ongoing and continuous process, the impacts of HEC in terms of loss of human life, elephant deaths, environmental degradation, quality of life, property, crops and livelihood losses and opportunity costs is staggering and it equals or even surpasses the magnitude of onetime or infrequent events such as earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, hurricanes and volcanic eruptions. Therefore it would tremendously benefit the efforts to address HEC if it could be categorized as a disaster risk management priority. This would ensure that international bi and multilateral aid agencies treat mitigation of HEC as a priority in any development work they support in elephant areas.

There are several top level issues that need to be addressed if we need elephants to survive in the long term;

1. National Elephant policy (Ex. Project Elephant in India, Sri Lanka PA network, Bangladesh Action Plan, Example of Indonesia Action Plan – need for more stakeholder buy in etc.)

2. Governance issues and development agenda – need to engage with investors. Our vision for elephant conservation needs to be sold to other stakeholders.

3. Human Population increase – Need to make links with UNFPA and foundations like Gates Foundation. The idea is to attract them to our priority areas and have them implement their programmes.