shifting paradigms in protected area management

National Trust for Nature Conservation SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT

SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT

National Trust for Nature Conservation P.O. Box 3712, Kathmandu, Nepal Jawalakhel, Lalitpur Tel: +977 1 5526571, 5526573 Fax: + 977 1 5526570 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ntnc.org.np

Edited by Siddhartha B. Bajracharya, PhD Ngamindra Dahal

NTNC 2008

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC). Published by: National Trust for Nature Conservation, Kathmandu Copyright: © 2008 National Trust for Nature Conservation Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited. Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non commercial purposes is permitted provided the source is fully acknowledged. ISBN: 978-9937-2-0362-3 Citation: Bajracharya, S.B. and Dahal, N. (Edited) 2008. Shifting Paradigms in Protected Area Management. NTNC, Kathmandu Consulting Editor: Mr. Arun Rana Publication of this book was supported by UNEP-ROAP, Bangkok. Design & Production by: Ultimate Marketing, Ranibari, Lazimpat, 977-1- 4352223, [email protected] Photo Credit: S.B. Bajracharya, S. Ale, N. Dahal. & M. Chetri

Shifting Paradigms in Protected Area Management

40

BRIDGING SUSTAINABILITY AND PRODUCTIVITY Devaka K. Weerakoon1

Sri Lanka is an island covering an area of 65,610 km2 and is considered as one of the global biodiversity hotspots along with the Western Ghats of India (Myers et al., 2000; Mittermeier et al., 2005). The flagship species of Sri Lanka’s biodiversity is none other than the largest terrestrial animal in the Asian subcontinent, the Asian Elephant (Elephas maximus maximus). At present, Sri Lanka supports around 4,000 wild elephants which is the third largest Asian Elephant population in the world (DWLC, 2007). This is indeed a large population for a small island like Sri Lanka, with a density of approximately 1 animal per 16 km2. One must turn to history in order to understand the reasons that have contributed to such a high elephant density in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka’s written history dates back to the 5th century B.C. The chronicles indicate that Sri Lanka’s civilization is molded by two major factors, Buddhism and agriculture. One of the main agricultural practices seen in Sri Lanka is chena cultivation also known as shifting cultivation or slash and burn cultivation, especially in the drier parts of the island. Here the farmer clears a plot of land burns it and cultivates crops for a single cropping season. The 1

Department of Zoology, University of Colombo, Colombo 3, Sri Lanka

following year the farmer shifts to a different plot of land, eventually returning to the original plot after several years. This type of land use practice converts climax vegetation to a secondary vegetation and sustains it in that state by preventing natural succession. The Asian Elephant is an edge species (Fernando et al., 2004) and prefers such secondary vegetation (Table 1) which is rich in food plants such as grass and scrub species (Ishwaran, 1993; Samansiri and Weerakoon, 2000a; Samansiri and Weerakoon 2000b; Weerakoon et al., 2004). This is possibly due to the fact that they have poor digestive and detoxification capabilities that prevent them from feeding on tree species that contain complex toxins to discourage herbivores. As such there is reason to believe that the chena

Table 1: Elephants Densities Observed in Different Habitat Types HABITAT TYPE

Dry Grassland Marsh grassland Scrub patches Forest Source: Ishwaran 1993

DENSITY OF ELEPHANTS/ SQ.KM. 2.0 3.6 3.0 0.2

– – – –

4.0 4.0 3.2 1.5

Role of Barandabhar Corridor Forest in Landscape Level Conservation

farmers in Sri Lanka have created elephant habitat for thousands of years as a consequence of their farming practice contributing to a high density of elephants. However, with time the human population has increased by many folds in Sri Lanka leading to the current level of 20 million people—one of the highest population densities in South Asia. Thus the demand for land has also increased while at the same time shifting cultivation has changed to permanent cultivation due to limited availability of land as well as more water being made available for farmers through new irrigation schemes. This has created a conflict between man and elephant with respect to land use.

In order to resolve the escalating conflict between man and elephant the National Government has set aside nearly 11% of the land area of Sri Lanka as protected areas (PA’s) with the Asian Elephant as the main conservation target (Table 2, Figure 1). However, a census carried out by the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC) shows that between 35– 50% of the elephants use areas outside the protected area network on a permanent or temporary basis (DWC, 2007; Hendavitharana, 1994). These are the areas where high humanelephant conflicts persist at present. Therefore, the extensive protected area network established for conservation of elephants has failed to retain them effectively. The reason for this failure lies

Table 2: Protected Areas of Sri Lanka where the Primary Conservation Target is the Asian Elephant NO.

NAME

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Giants tank Madhu road Wilpattuwa Kahalla-pallekelle Seegeriya Minneriya-girithale complex Kaudulla Tricomalee Somawatie chaithiya Thrikonamadhu Flood plains Wasgomuwa Madhuru oya Victoria-Randenigala-Rantembe Bogahapattiya Udawalawe Galoya complex Lahugala-kithulana Ruhuna complex Lunugamvehera Bundala

CATEGORY* Sa Sa NP Sa Sa NP/ Sa/ NR NP Sa NP NR NP NP NP Sa Sa NP NP/ Sa NP NP/ Sa/ SNR NP NP

Sa = Sanctuary; NP = National Park; NR = Nature Reserve; SNR = Strict Nature Reserve Note: The number indicates the number used to identify the protected area in the map shown in figure 1 Source: Department of Wildlife Conservation

AREA (HA) 4,330 26,677 132,299 21,690 5,099 25,034 8,335 18,130 37,645 25,019 18,171 37,062 58,849 42,087 32,000 30,821 57,137 1,554 123,339 23,498 6,216

41

42


in the erroneous management strategy pursued by the DWC in these protected areas. Most of these areas that were designated as protected areas were traditionally managed by humans under a shifting cultivation regime which creates optimal conditions for elephants. Once such an area is designated as a protected area, humans are excluded from the habitat. The ensuing ‘hands off’ management regime results in replacement of the slash and burn cycle by another, the natural succession cycle leading to a secondary climax of mature scrub habitat where elephants can find little fodder. Thus the carrying capacity of protected areas tends to diminish gradually with time (table 1). However, slash and burn cultivation is still being practiced in the buffer areas of these protected areas where there is still plenty of food available for elephants. As a result, elephants are attracted to the buffer areas, especially during the dry season to meet their nutritional requirements which eventually leads to conflicts with humans. As a result, more than 150 elephants are killed by farmers and on an average, 60 or more people are killed by elephants annually. Further, damage caused by elephants to crops and property amounts to several million rupees each year. The current strategy adopted by DWC to mitigate human-elephant conflict is to drive these elephants into the PAs and fence them or translocate problem animals into PAs. However, most PAs are already operating near their carrying capacity for elephants and therefore cannot support further numbers. Further, the DWC also provide elephant deterrents to farmers and also pay compensation through an insurance scheme

FIGURE: 2

MAP SHOWING THE PROTECTED AREAS OF SRI LANKA WHERE THE PRIMARY CONSERVATION TARGET IS THE ASIAN ELEPHANT

Source: Department of Wildlife Conservation

for loss of life or injuries caused by elephants. Even though the National Government has invested a great deal of money and set aside a substantial area of land for elephant conservation in Sri Lanka, the level of conflict continues to escalate raising serious questions regarding the future of the Asian Elephant in Sri Lanka. Therefore time has come to explore other management options, especially for the elephants that range outside PAs as they are the ones that cause conflict. One of the management options


that can be undertaken is to eliminate elephants that are in areas developed for human use by culling or capture for domestication. Even though the continued killing of elephants by farmers can be interpreted as a form of culling, it has not resulted in the alleviation of the conflict. Further, culling elephants as a management policy is unacceptable in Sri Lanka for socio-cultural and political reasons. Similarly, given the environmental attitudes and the endangered status of the Asian Elephant, capture for domestication is also ethically unacceptable. Another alternative to prevent elephants from leaving the protected areas would be to increase the carrying capacity of these PAs through intensive habitat management. However, the scale of habitat enrichment required to sustain elephants are not economically viable. Furthermore, all PAs cannot be converted to elephant habitats as this would seriously affect other biodiversity within the park. A third option is to manage buffer areas of selected PAs to increase the carrying capacity of these areas for elephants through promotion of land-use practices that are compatible with human uses and elephant conservation. The aim of this paper is to describe a novel project that will be initiated by Centre for Conservation and Research in Sri Lanka to explore a cohabitation model for humans and elephants. This model is based on the hypothesis that chena cultivation in the buffer zone of PAs can be managed with minimal conflict, which will create a landscape mosaic that elephants

prefer. This hypothesis was formulated based on long term studies conducted by our research group which shows that elephants generally stay away from chena areas during the cropping season as there is sufficient food available within the PA and uses the chena area mainly during the fallow season when food becomes scarce inside the PAs (figure 2). It has also been observed that there is very little crop raiding taking place with most of the crop raids being from single males or male groups while herds rarely raid crops. Further, an interview survey of the chena farmers indicates that they do not consider elephants as a significant threat to their crops. The human elephant cohabitation model will be tested in a site called Weliara located in the buffer zone of the Ruhunu National Park complex. At present the PA is separated from the buffer zone by an electric fence which prevents elephants from using the buffer zone during the fallow season. We propose that the electric fence be moved to the ecological boundary rather than the administrative boundary to include the buffer zone and allow farmers to practice chena within the buffer zone. This will allow both farmers and elephants to use the buffer zone with little conflict. Further, as a part of the project the farmers will be provided protection through electric fences as well as compensation for crop depredation. At the same time we will facilitate a mechanism for the farmers to get a higher market price for their produce by introducing an accreditation system to show that purchasing their produce helps elephant conservation.

43

44


FIGURE: 2

USAGE PATTERNS OF THE BUFFER AREA OF RUHUNU NATIONAL PARK COMPLEX BY ASIAN ELEPHANTS

125

100

75

50

25

0 Jul-02

Jun-02

May-02

Apr-02

Mar-02

Feb-02

Jan-02

Dec-01

Nov-01

Oct-01

Sep-01

Aug-01

Jul-01

Jun-01

May-01

Apr-01

Mar-01

Feb-01

Month DAYS WHEN CULTIVATED

DAYS WHEN FINISHED

BULL

HERD

Note: The area is managed by local communities under a slash and burn regime. The farming season starts in December immediately after the rains and continues till March. The main crops cultivated are vegetables and cereals. The long fallow period between April to October allows chena plots to be colonized by short grass and scrub species such as Dichrostachys cinerea, Acacia sp., and Memecyclon sp. Succession during the 5–10 year period between cultivation cycles creates a vegetation mosaic across the landscape, from scrub in early colonization stages to mature scrub forest. About 100 to 150 elephants utilize this area on a permanent or temporary basis.

We expect that this management strategy will allow elephants to access critical food resources in the buffer zone during the dry season while allowing people to cultivate the land using traditional farming methods. Thereby it will create a ‘win-win’ situation for both elephants and man. If this model produces promising results, it could be used on a wider scale to conserve elephants in buffer areas.

Acknowledgements I wish to thank my collaborators Dr. P Fernando and Dr E. Wickramanayake, and Mr. H K Janaka. I also wish to thank the Department of Wildlife Conservation for the cooperation extended to us in implementing this project. I would also like to thank the funding agencies Global Environment Facility, Liz Claiborne and Art Ortenberg Foundation, US Fish and Wildlife Services and Department of Wildlife Conservation who have generously supported this research program.


REFERENCES DWLC. (2007). National policy for the conservation and management of wild elephants in Sri Lanka, Unpublished. Fernando, P., Gunawardena, M.D., Hathurusinghe, H.S., Janaka, H.K., Jayasinghe, L.K.A., Perera, R.A.R., Samansiri, K.P.A., Sandanayake, A., Weerakoon, D.K., & Wickramanayake, E. (2004). Towards a rational, scientific elephant conservation and management strategy for Sri Lanka. In J. Jayawardene (Ed.), Endangered Elephants, Past, Present & Future (pp. 199–200), Proceedings of the Symposium on Human Elephant Relationships and Conflicts, Sri Lanka, September. Colombo: Biodiversity & Elephant Conservation Trust, Colombo. Hednavitharana, W., Dissanayake, S., de Silva, M., & Santiapillai, C. (1994). The survey of elephants in Sri Lanka, Gajah 12, 1-30. Ishwaran, N. (1993). Ecology of the Asian elephant in lowland dry zone habitats of the Mahaweli river basin, Sri Lanka, Journal of Tropical Ecology, 9, 169–182. Mittermeier, R.A., Gil, P.R., Hoffman, M., Pilgrim, J., Brooks, T., Mittermeier, C.G., Lamoreux, J., & da Fonseca, G.A.B. (2005). Hotspots revisited: Earth’s biologically richest and most threatened terrestrial ecoregions. Washington D.C.: Conservation International. Myers N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B., & Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities, Nature 403, 853-858. Samansiri, K.A.P., & Weerakoon, D.K. (2000a). Feeding behaviour of elephants in the northwestern region of Sri Lanka. Proceedings of the 55TH Annual Session of the Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of Science 2000, (p. 154), Peradeniya, Sri Lanka:. Samansiri, K.A.P., & Weerakoon, D.K. (2000b). The Role of elephant (Elephas maximus) as a seed dispersal agent, Proceedings of the 6TH Annual Forestry and Environment Symposium 2000, (p. 35), Kandy, Sri Lanka. Weerakoon, D.K., Gunawardena, M.D., Janaka, H.K., Jayasinghe, L.K.A., Perera, R.A.R., Fernando, P., & Wickramanayake, E. (2004). Ranging behaviour and habitat use of elephants in Sri Lanka. In J. Jayawardene (Ed.), Endangered Elephants, Past, Present & Future (pp. 68–70), Proceedings of the Symposium on Human Elephant Relationships and Conflicts, Sri Lanka, September. Colombo: Biodiversity & Elephant Conservation Trust, Colombo.

!!!

45