Study on People's Perception

on Human Elephant Conflict

ConflictInteractions
Issues and Mitigative Strategies in Nilambur-Brahmagiri,
Wayanad

Report Submitted by
Ashish Ninan Sam
1509
IIFM, Bhopal
1

STUDENT DECLARATION

I, Ashish Ninan Sam, hereby declare that the presented report of

internship titled People's perception about Human Elephant conflict in
Nilambur-Brahmagiri Arena is uniquely prepared by me after the
completion of two months work at World Wide Fund (WWF).
I also confirm that, the report is only prepared for my academic
requirement not for any other purpose. It might not be used with the
interest of opposite party of the corporation.

Place
Ashish Ninan Sam
Date

PFM 2015-17

Acknowledgement
After an intensive period of two months, today is the day: writing this note of thanks
is the finishing touch on my report. It has been a period of intense learning for me,
not only in the livelihood and conservation arena, but also on a personal level.
Writing this report has had a big impact on me. I would like to reflect on the people
who have supported and helped me so much throughout this period.
I would first like to thank my reporting officer Dr. D Boominathan, landscape
coordinator, WWF for his support and guidance throughout my stay in Wayanad. I
would also like to thank Vinayan P. A. (Field Assistant, WWF) for his excellent
cooperation and the opportunities given by him for completion of the project. I also
extend my gratitude towards to Saleem and Kannan (Support Staff, WWF) for their
support throughout the project. There have been many people who have generously
extended their hand for help I would like to extended my deepest gratitude to each
one of them.
I would also like to thank my parents for their wise counsel and sympathetic ear. I'm
you are always there for me. Finally, there are my friends. We were not only able to
support each other by deliberating over our problems and findings, but also happily
by talking about things other than just our papers

Content
STUDENT DECLARATION....................................................1
Acknowledgement............................................................3
Content............................................................................ 4
Index of Tables.................................................................5
Table of Charts.................................................................6
Executive Summary..........................................................7
Introduction.................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Elephants................................................................................................ 8
Distribution of Elephants in India............................................................9
Feeding Behavior of Elephants..............................................................10
Indian Elephant Population Figures.......................................................10
Elephant Corridors................................................................................ 11
Southern India.......................................................................................... 12

Human Elephant Conflict (HEC)........................................13

Manslaughter by Elephants.......................................................................14
Elephant Death by Humans......................................................................14
Mitigation.................................................................................................. 14
Long-Term Methods................................................................................... 16
Conservation Action Plan......................................................................16
1) Crop Guarding...................................................................................... 17
2) Air Borne- missiles................................................................................ 17
3) Elephant Proof Trench...........................................................................18
4) Electric Fence....................................................................................... 18
5) Elephant Proof Wall............................................................................... 19

Objectives of the study...................................................19

Significance....................................................................20
Material and Methods.....................................................20
Study Area............................................................................................ 20
Location................................................................................................ 21
Corridor 1.................................................................................................. 21
Corridor 2.................................................................................................. 21
Corridor 4.................................................................................................. 21

Corridor 5.................................................................................................. 21

A Brief History................................................................21
Population............................................................................................. 22
Methodology......................................................................................... 22

Sample Selection Method................................................23

Assessment of HEC.........................................................23
Observation and Result...................................................24
Assessment Of Crop Damage................................................................26
Crop damage last year.............................................................................. 27
Crop damage in the last 5 years...............................................................28
Status of Crop Damage.........................................................................29
Seasonality of Crop Damage.................................................................30
ASSESSMENT OF MITIGATION MEASURES..............................................31
Effectiveness of Government Barriers.......................................................32
ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY DAMAGE...................................................33
ASSESSMENT OF HUMAN ATTACK..........................................................33
Status of crop damage..........................................................................33
Assessment of Elephant problem in a year...........................................34
Elephant Corridors................................................................................ 35
Assessment of Elephant Movement......................................................36
Barriers and Bottleneck to free movement of Elephants.......................37
Movement of Elephant (Highest Month)...................................................37
Status Of Herds......................................................................................... 38
Status of Single Elephants........................................................................39
COMPENSATION FOR ELEPHANT PROBLEM............................................40
Forest Dependency............................................................................... 41
BEST METHODS TO STOP HEC (People's Perception)............................42

Discussions....................................................................43
Conclusion......................................................................44
Decision Making Framework.................................................................45
Decision Making Matrix.........................................................................45

REFERENCE..................................................................... 47
APPENDIX.......................................................................51

Index of Tables
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table

1: Number of Household__________________________________________________24
2: Affected Household____________________________________________________25
3: Type of HEC____________________________________________________________26
4: Common plantation in the area_________________________________________27
5: Amount of crops damaged_____________________________________________27
6: Crop damaged over 5 years____________________________________________28
7: Crop damage corridor wise_____________________________________________29
8: Status of crop damage_________________________________________________29
9: Seasonality of Crop damage____________________________________________30
10: Presence of Barriers__________________________________________________31
11: Percentage of Mitigation success______________________________________32

Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table

12 : Assessment of property damage_____________________________________33

13: Status of Crop damage_______________________________________________34
14: Assessment of elephant problem in a year____________________________34
15: Assessment of elephant movement___________________________________36
16: Barriers and bottleneck_______________________________________________37
17: Movement of elephants_______________________________________________37
18: Status of herds_______________________________________________________38
19: Status of Single Elephants____________________________________________39
20: Compensation for elephant problem__________________________________40
21: People who received Compensation___________________________________41
22: Forest Dependency___________________________________________________41
23: Decision making matrix_______________________________________________46

Table of Charts
Chart
Chart
Chart
Chart
Chart
Chart
Chart
Chart
Chart
Chart

1: Number of Household__________________________________________________24
2: Affected Household____________________________________________________25
3: No. of House Affected__________________________________________________26
4 : Seasonality of crop damage___________________________________________31
5 : Percentage success of mitigation methods____________________________32
6: Status of crop damage_________________________________________________34
7: Movement of Elephants________________________________________________38
8: Status of Herd_________________________________________________________39
9: Status of Single Elephants_____________________________________________40
10: Forest Dependency___________________________________________________42

Executive Summary
The continued co-existence of wildlife and humans is necessary for the quality of life
for both the species; this quality of life refers to peaceful existence and abundance
of resources for such state; be it in woods for animals or in villages and towns for
humans. But with growing scarcity of resources conflict between human and wildlife
has become a popular phenomenon. Though humans are majorly responsible for the
conflict, over the last decade there have been many cases of animal intervention in
agricultural lands and town. This study aims to understand the human elephant
conflict from the perspective of people.
This study was concentrated on the corridors of North Brahmagiri and
Nilambur region, Wayanad with special focus on loss of life and property along with
the remuneration work done by the forest department. The area was selected on
the basis of past history of conflicts in the entire area and closely observing the
movement of the elephants along the vicinity. The sites chosen were distributed
along north and south Wayanad.
The common phenomenon observed were the increase of Elephant conflict in
most of the sites due to agricultural practices prevailing in the area and the lack of
proper mitigation methods. The intrusion of humans in the forest is very less in
comparison of Elephants and other Wildlife intruding in the human inhabitation.
Over the period of time it is observed that the elephants have changed their usual
path of movement along the corridors.
To avoid conflict various mitigation techniques can be adopted like proper
Electric Fence, Elephant proof trenches; Elephant proof wall and other long-term
activities. These mitigation methods may vary from site to site according to the
7

geographical structure of the area, level of conflict in the area, economic loss over
the period of time, etc.

Introduction
The continued co-existence of wildlife and sapiens is important to the quality of life of
both the species. Sam
Coexistence is term, which seems to be coined recently but its practice goes way back to
the first man living. People and wild animal have dependent on each other for various
purposes but on the other had a spark of conflict has also existed between them. People
have killed animals for food and animals have also disrupted the lives of people by
destroying their agriculture and causing various other damages, and this interference has
been going on as far as man has remembered.
Elephant the largest living land mammal has also contributed dearly towards this
conflict. They have destroyed agriculture, houses and caused tremendous amount of fear
onto the minds of the people then to they are respected and worshiped on the same land.
This report is about understanding the perspective of humans regarding the conflict,
interaction and movement of the Elephant.

Elephants
Elephants are large mammals of the family Elephantidae and the order Proboscides. Two
species

are

traditionally

recognized,

the African

elephant (Loxodonta

africana)

and

the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), although some evidence suggests that African bush
elephants and African forest elephants are separate species. Elephants are scattered
throughout sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. Elephantidae is the only
surviving family of the order Proboscidea; other, now extinct, members of the order
include deinotheres, gomphotheres, mammoths, and mastodons. Male African elephants
are the largest extant terrestrial animals and can reach a height of 4 m (13 ft.) and weigh
7,000 kg (15,000 lbs.). All elephants have several distinctive features, the most notable of
which is a long trunk or proboscis, used for many purposes, particularly breathing, lifting
water and grasping objects. Their incisors grow into tusks, which can serve as weapons and
as tools for moving objects and digging. Elephants' large earflaps help to control their body
temperature. Their pillar-like legs can carry their great weight. African elephants have larger
ears and concave backs while Asian elephants have smaller ears and convex or level backs.

In general, Asian elephants are smaller than African elephants and have the highest
body point on the head. The tip of their trunk has one finger-like process. Their back is
convex or level. Indian elephants reach a shoulder height of between 2 and 3.5 m (6.6 and
11.5 Ft.), weigh between 2,000 and 5,000 kg (4,400 and 11,000 lb.), and have 19 pairs of
ribs. Their skin color is lighter than of maximus with smaller patches of depigmentation, but
darker than of sumatranus. Females are usually smaller than males, and have short or
no tusks.
The largest Indian elephant was 3.43 meters (11.3 ft.) high at the shoulder. In 1985, two
large elephant bulls were spotted for the first time in Bardia National Park, and named Raja
Gaj and Kanchha. They roamed the park area together and made occasional visits to the
females. Raja Gaj stood 11.3 ft. (3.4 m) tall at the shoulder and had a massive body weight.
His appearance has been compared to that of a mammoth due to his high bi-domed shaped
head. His forehead and domes were more prominent than in other Asian bull elephants.
Indian elephants have smaller ears, but relatively broader skulls and larger trunks than
African elephants. Toes are large and broad. Unlike their African cousins, their abdomen is
proportionate with their body weight but the African elephant has a large abdomen as
compared to the skulls.

Distribution of Elephants in India

Indian

elephants

are

native

to

India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Myanmar, Thailand, Malay,

mainland

Asia:

Peninsular, Laos,

China, Cambodia, and Vietnam. They are regionally extinct from Pakistan. They inhabit
grasslands, dry deciduous, moist deciduous, evergreen and semi-evergreen forests. In the
early 1990s, their estimated population size was 27,785 in India, where populations are
restricted to four general areas:

In the Northwest at the foot of the Himalayas in Uttarakhand and Uttar

Pradesh, ranging from Katarniaghat Wildlife Sanctuary to the Yamuna River;

In the Northeast from the eastern border of Nepal in northern West

Bengal through western Assam along the Himalaya foothills as far as the Mishmi
Hills, extending into eastern Arunachal Pradesh, the plains of upper Assam, and the
foothills of Nagaland, to the Garo Hills of Meghalaya through the Khasi Hills, to parts
of

the

lower Brahmaputra plains

and Karbi

Plateau;

isolated

herds

occur

in Tripura, Mizoram, Manipur, and in the Barak Valley districts of Assam:

In the central part in Orissa, Jharkhand, and in the southern part of West
Bengal, with some animals wandering into Chhattisgarh;

In the South eight populations are fragmented from each other in

northern Karnataka, in the crestline of KarnatakaWestern Ghats, in Bhadra Malnad,
in BrahmagiriNilgirisEastern Ghats (point of study), in NilamburSilent Valley
Coimbatore,

in AnamalaiParambikulam,

in PeriyarSrivilliputhur,

and

one

in Agasthyamalai;

Feeding Behavior of Elephants

Elephants are generalist feeders, using vegetation from ground level up to about 10 feet off
the ground. Long grasses are pulled up by the trunk and inserted in the mouth. To eat short
grasses, the elephant kicks at the ground, loosening the grasses including their roots,
scrapes a pile of grass together then sweeps the pile up with its trunk. Branches and twigs
are held with the forefeet while the trunk removes smaller pieces. To eat bark, a large
branch is broken from the tree and held with the feet, then smaller pieces are broken off,
inserted in the mouth and a turning movement of the trunk tip is used to turn the branch
between the teeth or a tush, stripping the bark off. Different parts of a plant may be eaten
at different times of the year, for example for tall grass, the tops of the tender growing
blades, or the main part of the leaves, or when the leaves have grown fibrous, the more
succulent bases and roots. Feeding rates of Asian elephants may vary from as low as one
mouthful per two minutes to as high as 2.5 mouthfuls per minute (and three mouthfuls per
minute, of two or three fruits at a time, for an elephant eating fallen tamarind). Feeding
rates may be affected by hunger as well as by the amount of preparation required for a
food item to be eaten.
Asian elephants drink daily, using their trunk to suck up water then transferring it to the
mouth. Juveniles of about five years old have been seen to walk into water and drink
directly with the mouth. If no surface water is available, elephants dig holes in sandy
streambeds to reach water.
During the study elephants showed a peculiar liking to Bananas and jack fruit and as
claimed by many villages, they breach the agricultural land when the fruits are ripe, many
claimed that it is due to the lack of vegetation inside the forest which seemed
unsubstantiated as its just the single elephants that cause the major agricultural
destruction in the fields and herd stick to the vegetation inside the forest. This is the cause
of major HEC in most of the corridors of Nilambur and Brahmagiri. However in many such

10

areas the major plantation is not eaten by elephants and can be safely assumed that HEC
can be reduces if the village stop growing crops which are not eaten by elephants but it is a
vague argument and cannot be concluded without hard evidence. As the study is primarily
concentrated on the villages situated on corridors of elephants movement, HEC has various
other factors apart from elephant preferred vegetation.

Indian Elephant Population Figures

Elephant Range:

110,000 km approx.

Country Ranking:

2nd of 13
23,900 32,900 total
10,300 -17,400 (south)

Total Wild Elephants:

2,400 2,700 (central)

10,300 11,300 (north-east)
900 1,500 (north-west)

Country Ranking:

1st of 13

Total Captive Population:

3,500

Country Ranking:

3rd

Source: R Sukumar A Brief Review of the Status, Distribution and Biology of Wild Asian Elephants
Elephas maximus- International Zoo Yearbook 2006

While this information source is considered the very best available, accurate data on wild
elephant populations is difficult to obtain and scientifically verify.

Elephant Corridors

The word corridor can be easily misused and improperly defined. Beier and Noss (1998) in
Do habitat provide connectivity provide the definition of a habitat corridor as: a linear
habitat, embedded in a dissimilar matrix, that connects two or more larger blocks of habitat
and that is proposed for conservation on the grounds that it will enhance or maintain the
viability of specific wildlife populations in the habitat blocks. The importance of a habitat
corridor can only come from the core habitat that it is connecting. Corridors rely on a matrix
of existing but discontinuous natural areas to realize their full potential. In most urban

11

areas, the wildlife habitat that does exist is rarely connected and therefore creates a
dangerous environment for there are no opportunities for safe migration and little, if any
biodiversity which is essential in creating any sustainable habitat.
Corridors are essential to any species for every species is required to migrate for
survival. Without corridors and diverse landscape available to species, extinction rates
increase exponentially. With natural disasters such as flood and fires, wildlife need options if
their current habitat is destroyed. Landscape is considered to be a sea of habitat islands
and the only way to bring them together is through connectivity brought by corridors.
India has an estimated wild population of about 25,000-28,000 elephants, roughly 50
per cent of the world's Asian elephant population. These range across 26 Elephant Reserves
spread over about 110,000 sq. km. forests in northeast, central, northwest and south India.
Of the 88 elephant corridors identified, 12 are in northwestern India, 20 in central India, 14
in northern West Bengal, 22 in northeastern India and 20 in southern India. Of the total,
elephants are regularly using 77.3 per cent of the corridors. Fragmentation of elephant
habitat was most severe in northern West Bengal followed by northwestern India,
northeastern India and central India respectively. The least fragmentation was noted in
southern India. Only 28.5 per cent of the corridors in the country are one kilometer or below
in length. However, on a regional basis, about 65 per cent of the corridors in southern India
are one kilometer or below in length. In southern India, 65 per cent of the corridors are
under the Protected Area network and/or under Reserve Forests and 65 per cent of the
corridors are fully under forest cover. In comparison, for example, 90 per cent of the
corridors in central India are jointly under forest, agriculture and settlements and only 10
per cent are completely under forest. On a countrywide basis, only 24 per cent of the
corridors are under complete forest cover. Settlements and the resulting biotic pressure in
corridors are serious issues and throughout India, only 22.8 per cent corridors are without
any major settlements.
On a zonal basis, the highest number of corridors was seen in northern West Bengal, which
has one corridor for every 157 sq. km. of available elephant habitat. The lowest number
was in southern India, where one corridor exists for every 1,995 sq. km. of the available
habitat. Similarly for northeastern India, one corridor exists for every 1,764 sq. km., central
India has one corridor in every 1,775 sq. km. and northern India has one in every 460 sq.
km. Of the identified corridors, about one third (30 per cent) are of high ecological priority
and 67 per cent are of medium priority. Based on conservation feasibility, 19.3 per cent are
of high priority, 55.7 per cent of medium and 25 per cent of low priority.

Southern India

The southernmost elephant populations of India range over the two principal mountain
chains of southern India (the Western Ghats and a part of the Eastern Ghats) in the states of

12

Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. There are about eight populations
within this range based on contiguity of habitats.
Northern Karnataka has about 40-60 elephants isolated from the other populations of the
Western Ghats. The elephants are present in Uttara Kannada and Belgaum districts. The
elephants inhabiting the crest-line of Karnataka are highly scattered in South Kanara,
Mangalore, Shimoga and Chikmangalur districts. The moist deciduous forest of the Bhadra
Wildlife Sanctuary is the major elephant habitat that lies on the Malnad plateau on the
eastern flanks of the Western Ghats. The largest single population of elephants in Asia
occupy areas south of this region extending from the Brahmagiri hills to the Eastern Ghats,
comprising the Nilgiri hills of Tamil Nadu, the Bandipur-Nagarahole Protected Area complex
of Karnataka, Wayanad in Kerala and the Nilgiri Ranganswamy Temple Sanctuary of
Karnataka adjoining the Satyamangalam, Kollegal, Hosur and Dharmapuri Forest Divisions.
The region has diverse vegetation types with over 3,300 sq. km. out of a total of about
12,600 sq. km. lying within the Protected Area network. This complex is estimated to have a
minimum of 6,300 elephants.
Other than these large populations, an isolated herd of about 30 elephants inhabit the
Kaundinya Wildlife Sanctuary in the Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh that have originally
migrated from the Hosur and Anekal Forest Divisions of Tamil Nadu. A small group of about
six elephants is also reported from an isolated area in Tirupattur Forest Division of Tamil
Nadu.
Down south, the elephant population of Nilambur, Silent Valley and Coimbatore belt
is spread over 2,300 sq. km. of habitat. The Anamalai-Parambikulam area is a stretch of
about 5,500 sq. km. and is home for about 1,600 elephants. This area covers a number of
forest divisions of Kerala and Tamil Nadu including Protected Areas such as the Indira
Gandhi, Paramabikulam, Chimmoni, Chinnar, Peechi-Vazhani, Thattekkad Bird Sanctuary,
Eravikulam National Park and in addition to the Palni hills, Vazhachal, Nelliyampathi,
Malayattur, Mankulam and Munnar areas.
The Idukki Wildlife Sanctuary and the adjacent areas of Ayyappankoil and Nagarampara
Ranges and part of the Munnar and Kothamangalam Forest Divisions have a small
population of elephants in an isolated patch of forests of about 300 sq. km. with a number
of settlements in and around the forests. The elephant population south of this inhabits the
Periyar-Srivilliputhur-Highway complex extending up to the Achenkoil forest through Ranni,
Konni, Punalur and Thenmala Forest Divisions. The southern-most population of elephants in
India, numbering about 200, ranges in the evergreen forests of Agasthyamalai, Neyyar,
Shendurney and Peppara Wildlife Sanctuaries and Kalakkad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve.
It is imperative that we begin the process of consolidating landscapes for elephants and
other wildlife through protecting and strengthening existing corridors, or creating corridors
where this is feasible and the situation not too late. This is not an easy process. It may take

13

years to set up a particular corridor. Each potential corridor will have to be "ground truthed"
to determine its importance, feasibility of creation and cost involved.
Source: Right to passage-Elephant corridors of India: Article (sanctuaryasia.com)

Human Elephant Conflict (HEC)

Human-elephant conflict (HEC) is dramatically on the rise and has become one of the major
issues in the fight to save Asias endangered elephants. In fact in most countries across the
Asian elephants range, it has replaced poaching as the major human cause of elephant
mortality.
The rise in HEC has been the result of the relentless increase of the human population in
Asia and the resulting loss and fragmentation of elephant habitat. Under pressure from
higher population densities and lack of fodder, elephant populations are increasingly
turning to crop raiding for sustenance.
Wild elephants can destroy a farmers livelihood and a year of hard work in just a few short
hours. These farmers are normally poor smallholders and the damage caused by elephants
can be financially ruinous for them and their families. The fight to protect their fields can
lead to the mobilization of entire communities, particularly when harvest time approaches.
Many techniques are used; lighting fires, banging drums and making noise, setting off
firearms and firecrackers, digging trenches, putting up electric fences. Unfortunately often
these methods are to no avail hungry elephants are difficult to frighten off and they
become acclimatized to the techniques.
Another factor in attacks by elephants is not the search for food, but for alcohol. Elephants
are attracted to and enjoy drinking alcohol. They have been known to attack and destroy
villages when they can smell alcohol brewing in small village stills. A group of elephants can
destroy a whole village in a matter of minutes and often threaten human life. Natural
Habitat Loss has led to a rise in human-elephant conflict

Manslaughter by Elephants
Each year, Asian elephants directly cause hundreds of human deaths through HEC.
Compare this to the human death toll from shark attacks, which is usually under 12 a year,
and you get some idea of the scale of the problem. In India alone, recorded deaths from
elephants number between 150 and 200 per year. Not all these deaths can be attributed to

14

crop or village raiding. About half are caused by chance encounters in the forest, when
humans are not aware of the presence of elephants until it is too late.
However, crop and village-raiding deaths are on the increase and barely a week goes by
without reports of elephants killing people. It has even been reported in some areas where
there is extreme population pressure and habitat shrinkage that elephant herds are
becoming noticeably more aggressive towards man. Crop raiding results in human deaths
on a weekly basis

Elephant Death by Humans

Human Elephant Conflict elephant deaths are on the rise. Irate farmers, terrified villages
and the even the military and police are reacting to crop depredation and damage to people
and settlements by fighting back and killing elephants. Even though the elephant is
protected by legislation across Asia, they are increasingly being killed in anger or selfdefense. Studies by Raman Sukumar (Human-wildlife Conflict, 2007) in three locations
in India suggested that up to 20% of elephant deaths were caused directly by crop defense.
These studies took place in 1982 and the situation is thought to have worsened since. In Sri
Lanka, it was observed that almost 150 wild elephants were shot or poisoned by farmers
every year. Farmers kill hundreds of elephants across Asia
The cost to both sides in the human-elephant conflict is immense and many governments
and NGOs in the elephant range states are actively looking at ways to reduce the toll of
death and destruction.

Mitigation
Human-elephant conflict mitigation measures fall under two categories: the short-term
(tactical) ones that address the symptoms and the long-term (strategic) solutions that
address the underlying causes. The majority of current solutions either target problem
elephants or apply short-term conflict mitigation at the interface between expanding
agriculture and diminishing elephant range and therefore achieve only limited success.
Traditional or local short-term methods include noise (shouting, beating drums,
burning bamboo, bursting fire crackers), light (fire at entry points to fields, powerful
spotlights) and missiles (stones, spears). Platforms on trees (machaan) or huts at groundlevel are used as lookouts and manned by individual farmers or groups guarding several
fields cooperatively. While studies have shown that such tactics have helped reduce crop
loss significantly, the inability of farmers to stay up awake over several consecutive nights
limits its viability on a continuous basis. People also endanger their lives by getting too

15

close to elephants or directly confronting them (Observations made based on remarks

column in the questionnaire).
Well-maintained barriers serve to keep elephants away from farmland but may funnel them
to unprotected adjacent villages. People who need access to forests compromise fences and
trenches. Badly planned barriers that do not take elephant behavior and use of landscape
into consideration can be just as bad as development obstructions such as highways,
railroads or canals. For example, denying elephants access to a critical water source or
foraging area can be detrimental to their survival and may even aggravate conflict. In
Bandipur, a trench separates the Reserve Forest from the National Park and there are
elephants on both sides. Instead of excluding elephants from the human landscape, such
barriers prevent them from moving between forests. The West Bengal Forest Department
installed a 70 km. electric fence to stop the elephants from Dalma Wildlife Sanctuary (Bihar)
from crossing the state boundary. The pachyderms thus held in check damaged crops in
Bihar until the local people surreptitiously cut the fence to mitigate the problem.
Although much touted in some quarters, bio-fences such as agave and cacti have been
found to be ineffective. Providing alternate forage sources by planting food trees and
bamboos over large areas is time consuming and also impractical. In West Bengal, the
Forest Department planted bamboo and fodder grass for elephants. While the plantations
raised in Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary succeeded in encouraging the animals to stay within
the park, the efforts were frustrated by villagers who grazed their livestock, illegally
collected firewood, fodder and caused wild fires.
A comparative study of the efficacy of chilly and tobacco-laced fences indicates that they
are more effective in low rainfall areas and in deterring elephant herds more than bulls.
Such chemical deterrents should be used as a novel weapon just prior to crop harvest
(when damage typically peaks) in order to prevent the animals from getting used to it; it is
also possible that such an olfactory-irritating fence is more a psychological than
physiological barrier.
The Forest Departments aid villagers by chasing away elephants using scaring squads,
driving them across the landscape into forests, and removing those perceived to be
dangerous, either by capture, translocation or killing. But neither elephant numbers nor
densities appear to have an effect on conflict. In Bengal, capturing half the herds and killing
about 20 rogue elephants did not make any significant difference to crop depredations
through the 1980s. The northeastern area of Kodagu District (Karnataka) has very little
forests left and a low estimated elephant density, yet it suffered more conflict than the rest
of the district. Similarly in Assam, while the elephant population is decreasing, conflict is

16

escalating. Conversely, the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve has very high elephant densities but
crop loss is considered low.

Long-Term Methods

Most long-term measures require humans to modify their behavior. Conflict mitigation

cannot

be

solved

by

the

Forest

Department

alone;

it

requires

multidisciplinary

collaborations between the Department of Agriculture, insurance companies, land-use

planners, biologists and the Forest Department. The implementation of these methods
requires a long time frame as well as political will.
The current and future land use plans need to accommodate elephants. This could be
an entry point for much wider conservation action, whose significance goes beyond these
large mammals. To be successful, a national policy, with a budget to implement it, is
needed. Since habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation are the root causes of the
problem, they need to be addressed to provide long-term solution to conflict
An important consideration in the choice of a particular measure is an economic costbenefit analysis for a region and situation. Before deciding which method to opt for, an
evaluation of the population and habitat needs to be undertaken. Elephant populations in
India are found in four situations: large population inhabiting large habitats, large
population in fragmented habitats, and small populations in large habitats and small
populations in fragmented habitats. The nature of conflict is quite different in these
populations; for instance, there is only sporadic conflict in the Periyar-Agasthyamalaik
Elephant Landscape while there is intense conflict over most regions of east-central India
(Jharkhand, Orissa and southern West Bengal). Mitigation options would obviously be
different in these situations. (Source sanctuaryasia.com)
Conflict mitigation also requires an increase in local peoples tolerance to damage.
Although the perception of conflict is dependent on the farmers vulnerability and risk
acceptance, this has not been addressed adequately by social science research. For
instance, wealth reduces the vulnerability of a farmer to loss, yet sometimes, it is the richer
ones (growing cash crops) who are the least tolerant of conflict.

Conservation Action Plan

In several areas, it is small isolated populations of elephants causing conflict. They are
Sinks for conservation resources and may provide no long-term benefits for the species. A
conservation action plan that prioritizes and recommends management action for
populations based on their long-term viability is a necessity. It is essential that humanelephant conflict mitigation becomes an integral part of the national elephant conservation
policy. Currently there is an inordinate stress on conflict mitigation measures such as

17

erecting electric fences, while little is done to consolidate elephant habitat or formulate
land use plans. Trans border cooperation is needed to manage elephant populations across
Indias international borders with Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh. Development of a rigorous
decision-making framework will require the participation of social scientists and economists.
There is a need for a clear policy and strategic planning to resolve human-elephant
conflict and elephant conservation issues. The current approach to dealing with conflict is
largely ad hoc, and predisposed to failure because of inappropriate application of methods,
lack of involvement of local people, lack of monitoring of conflict and conflict mitigation
measures, and inadequate understanding of elephant ecology in deploying mitigation
strategies. In the absence of policy there is an inordinate focus on the symptoms rather
than the causes of the problem. No single solution is effective and different approaches
need to be integrated to address human-elephant conflict proactively.
Elephants and humans are intelligent mammals competing for resources and
mitigation ought to involve not just curbing animal movement and consolidating habitat,
but also enabling local people to withstand the costs of some level of conflict, which will be
inevitable.
During the survey in the Nilambur- Brahmagiri corridor some of the mitigation
method were much more common than the others most of the methods were short term,
steps taken by mostly the people living the area. Some of these steps are Crop guarding, air
borne missiles etc.

1) Crop Guarding
This the most prominent method used by the farmers conducted on different levels of the
organization ranging from guarding crops in isolation or in groups, usually a alarm is raised
when a elephant comes near a field and people gather to chased it back, but the methods
used are still primitive like banging drums and making noises, most of the modern
technologies are either not available or the people not aware. For better visibility villagers
usually built an elevation house situated in the boundaries of the forest for a better view
and to respond immediately to raiding elephants their on site presence in the field also
helps them respond spontaneously. The usual response to the elephant siting is making
drum noises and throwing fire-cracker, the villagers gather up to case the elephant back
away to the forest.

18

2) Air Borne- missiles

These missiles range from sticks and stones to arrows, glowing tinder and spears. These in
the surveys showed a little injury to both elephants and humans but the cases in the study
were pretty rare. As per the villagers the injured elephant becomes much more furious and
the villagers are prone to get attacked. However this is a specialized skill and an expensive
solution.
The other technique used by the villagers is firecrackers which are easily available
and can be used to scare off elephant from a safe distance, this technique has seemed to
be useful so far for the villagers but a case in 37 Mile there is a elephant who is a habitual
to firecrackers and

this cause a huge problem for the villagers as firecrackers is their last

resort. According to Hart and Connell in their publication Seismic Properties of Asian
elephants (2000) suggested it is the best technique for scaring away the elephant but this
technique, which seem to be not working for the villagers of 37 Mile.

3) Elephant Proof Trench

Elephant trench is one of the commonly used elephant barriers to prevent the movement of
elephants. It is commonly used, as it is a cost effective techniques. These are build in a
standard measure technique along the periphery of the boundary of farmlands to prevent
elephants from entering the fields.
Over the years this technique has largely failed due to many reasons. In many areas
the trench are trench area are not build according to the standards, and the constructions
are usually failed during heavy rained and storms and cause elephants to cross such trench.
Other factors include land filling over the period of time.
During the survey there were no villages with trenches but some private estate had
their own trenches witch according to them were not as successful as the EF.

4) Electric Fence

An electric fence is a barrier that uses electric shocks to deter animals or people from
crossing a boundary. The voltage of the shock may have effects ranging from discomfort to
death. Most electric fences are used today for agricultural fencing and other forms of
animal control, although they are frequently used to enhance the security of sensitive
areas, such as military installations, prisons, and other security sensitive places; places
exist where lethal voltages are used.
Electric fences are designed to create an electrical circuit when touched by a person
or animal. A component called a power energizer converts power into a brief high
voltage pulse. One terminal of the power energizer releases an electrical pulse along a
connected bare wire about once per second. Another terminal is connected to a metal rod
implanted in the earth, called a ground or earth rod. A person or animal touching both the
wire and the earth during a pulse will complete an electrical circuit and will conduct the
pulse, causing an electric shock. The effects of the shock depend upon the voltage, the

19

energy of the pulse, the degree of contact between the recipient and the fence and ground
and the route of the current through the body; it can range from barely noticeable to
uncomfortable, painful or even lethal.
Smooth steel wire is the material most often used for electric fences, ranging from a
fine thin wire used as a single line to thicker, high-tensile (HT) wire. Less often, woven wire
or barbed wire fences can be electrified, though such practices create a more hazardous
fence, particularly if a person or animal becomes caught by the fencing material (electrified
barbed wire is unlawful in some areas). Synthetic webbing and rope-like fencing materials
woven with fine conducting wires (usually of stainless steel) have become available over
the last 15 to 20 years, and are particularly useful for areas requiring additional visibility or
as temporary fencing.
The electrified fence itself must be kept insulated from the earth and from any materials
that will conduct electricity and ignite or short out the fence. Fencing must therefore avoid
vegetation, and cannot be attached directly to wood or metal posts. Typically, wooden or
metal posts are driven into the ground and plastic or porcelain insulators are attached to
them, or plastic posts are used. The conducting material is then attached to the posts.
Electrified palisade fences

are

usually

made

from

painted mild

steel, galvanized steel, stainless steel or aluminum. Typically the fences are 2.4 meters
(7 ft. 10 in). The palisade fence is mechanically stronger than a typical steel cable electric
fence to withstand impact from wildlife, small falling trees and wildfires.
During the survey the most common techniques to stop the elephants is EF mostly installed
by government but are poorly maintained which does not bring much good to the people.

5) Elephant Proof Wall

It is one of the most efficient ways to mitigate HEC, construction of wall is made of stone
and cement it is the comparatively costly than the other mitigation techniques and quite
successful but it is not impenetrable and can be broken by elephants by their chest. In all
of the corridors surveyed none of the areas had EPW mostly due to the cost issues.

20

Objectives of the study

Rapid surveys in identified corridors to gather people's perception on Human
Elephant interactions, corridors, conflict and patches of forests
Data analysis and use for status paper on corridor
To assess the extent and intensity of HEC in Nilambur-Brahamagiri sector
Survey for baseline data on the corridor
To Know what HEC mitigation measures are practiced to reduce crop raid in the
affected areas and how can it be reduced

Significance
The significance of the study is to learn about the HEC in Nilambur- Brahmagiri aim to find
out the intensity of HEC in the same area in reference to the movement of elephant along
the corridor and people living there. From the selected area 4 corridors were selected. The
main factors, which were selected, were the destruction caused by elephants during raids in
the fields, the frequency of elephant raiding, mitigation activity in the area, corridor
movement of the elephant.
The interview was done in the pre selected 4 corridors in the area. The overall habitat
area is well connected to forest. The corridors are of different sizes and the habitat size has
reduced the area of corridor, which has impacted the intervention of wildlife in the nearby
villages.

Material and Methods

Study Area
21

Wayanad District is a district in the northeast of Kerala state, India with headquarters at the
town of Kalpetta. The district was formed on 1 November 1980 as the 12th district in Kerala
by carving out areas from Kozhikode and Kannurdistricts. The district is 3.79% urbanized,
with three municipal towns Kalpetta, Mananthavady and Sulthan Bathery.
Wayanad district is in the southern tip of the Deccan Plateau. Part of the Western Ghats is in
the district. In the center of the district hills are lower in height while the northern area has
high hills. The eastern area is flat and open.
The region was known as Mayakshetra (Maya's land) in the earliest records. Mayakshetra
evolved into Mayanad and finally to Wayanad. The Folk etymology of the word says it is a
combination of Vayal (paddy field) and Naad (land), making it 'The Land of Paddy Fields'.
There are many indigenous tribals in this area.
It is set high on the Western Ghats with altitudes ranging from 700 to 2100 m.
It is the least populous district in Kerala.
Unlike all other 13 districts of Kerala, in Wayanad district, there is no town or village named
same as the district (i.e., there is no "Wayanad town").

Location
All the four corridors selected in the area of Nilambur- Brahmagiri are in the boundaries of
forest. Most of the locations are prone to HEC.

Corridor 1

The first corridor is located in the north of Wayanad. In this area 4 sites were selected
Boystown, CRP Kunnu, 37 Mile and Chaparam.

Corridor 2

The second corridor consists of a single place Valantod. Most of the houses in the area
were vacated and most of the houses due to HEC.

Corridor 4

Third corridor was rules out as there no houses in the vicinity and the fourth corridor
consisted of a single place Lakdi with mostly resorts and hostels with some houses on the
boundary.

Corridor 5

The site in the fourth corridor was Appangap; the corridor is in a small portion with most of
the area covered in estate and small potion with tribal. The tribals were unwilling to give
interviews.

22

A Brief History
Comprising an area of 2,132 sq. kilometers, Wayanad has a powerful history. Historians are
of the view that organized human life existed in these parts, at least ten centuries before
Christ. Countless evidences about New Stone Age civilization can be seen on the hills of
Wayanad. The two caves of Ampukuthimala located between Sulthan Bathery and
Ambalavayal, with pictures on their walls and pictorial writings, speak volumes of the
bygone era and civilization. Recorded history of this district is available from the 18th
century. In ancient times, this land was ruled by the Rajas of the Veda tribe. In later days,
Wayanad came under the rule of the Pazhassi Rajahs of Kottayam royal dynasty. When
Hyder Ali becames the ruler of Mysore, he invaded Wayanad and brought it under his sway.
In the days of Tipu, Wayanad was restored to the Kottayam royal dynasty. But Tipu handed
over the entire Malabar region to the British, after the Sreerangapattanam truce, he made
with them. This was followed by fierce and internecine encounters between the British and
Kerala Varma Pazhassi Rajah of Kottayam. When the Rajah was driven to the wilderness of
Wayanad, he organized the war-like Kurichiya tribals into a sort of people's militia and
engaged the British in several guerrilla type encounters. In the end, the British could get
only the dead body of the Rajah, who killed himself somewhere in the interior of the forest.
Thus, Wayanad fell into the hands of the British and with it came a new turn in the Home of
this area. The British authorities opened up the plateau for cultivation of tea and other cash
crops. Roads were laid across the dangerous slopes of Wayanad, from Kozhikode and
Thalassery. These roads were extended to the cities of Mysore and Ooty through Gudalur.
Through the roads poured in settlers from all parts of Kerala and the virgin forestlands
proved a veritable goldmine with incredible yields of cash crops. When the State of Kerala
came into being in November 1956, Wayanad was part of Kannur district. Later, south
Wayanad was added to Kozhikode district. In order to fulfill the aspirations of the people of
Wayanad for development, north Wayanad and South Wayanad were carved out and joined
together to form the present district of Wayanad. This district came into being on November
1, 1980 as the 12 district of Kerala.

Population
According to the 2011 Census, Wayanad had population of 817,420 of which male and
female were 401,684 and 415,736 respectively. In 2001 census, Wayanad had a population
of 780,619 of which males were 391,273 and remaining 389,346 were females. Wayanad
District population constituted 2.45 percent of total Maharashtra population. In 2001
census, this figure for Wayanad District was at 2.45 percent of Maharashtra population.
There was change of 4.71 percent in the population compared to population as per 2001. In

23

the previous census of India 2001, Wayanad District recorded increase of 16.14 percent to
its population compared to 1991.

Methodology
As the population of most of the sites in the corridors is very low, hence more than 80% of
the entire population is been considered for the study and for most of the cases more than
90%. The main feature taken into consideration is the fragmentation of the people living
along side of the corridors.

Sample Selection Method

The overall habitat in the area remains connected although sometimes this is by means of
corridors of various sizes. However these constrictions create habitat patches of different
sixes and also fragmentations, which allow testing the impact of various, landscape
features on HEC. The evaluation of HEC is done through household interview in the preselected area. The interview was conducted in accordance to the settlement surrounding
the corridor. As the area of most of the corridors are not heavily populated and it is difficult
to rule out any unit without prior data collected hence most of the houses were interviewed
almost 80% of the population rest of the 20% left is due the absence of personals in the
house or the peoples unwilling to give the interviews etc. Only the areas recognized as a
corridor in Nilambur-Brahmagiri are taken into consideration.

Assessment of HEC
In areas where humans and elephants coexist, human welfare is inversely related to
Elephant welfare. Ideally, it would be best for both species if the other were totally absent.
However, there is a need to strike a balance between human welfare and elephant
conservation and this is where mitigation strategies are helpful (IUCN 2006). Identifying
what drives conflicts in an area is critical in determining how to resolve it. If the elephants
opportunistically eat crops, the can be deflected by any of the short-term measures such as
guarding and electric fencing. However, if they are forced to rely on crops for their survival,

24

barriers are needed to stop them (Boominathan et al.2008) but if these are successful, the
future of such elephants is threatened (Fernando et al. 2005). Alternatively, problem
elephants need to be removed (Sukumar 1989). The choice of intervention should not only
depend on effectiveness but also sustainability (Treves et al. 2006). Human elephant
Conflict mitigation measures fall under two categories, the short-term ones that address the
symptoms and the long-term solution that address the underlying causes (Boafo et al.
2004, Parker et al. 2007). However, targeting problem elephants and applying short-term
conflict mitigation at the interface between expanding agriculture and diminishing elephant
range will achieve only limited success (Hoare 1999, Parker et al. 2007).

Observation and Result

The basic objective of the study is to understand the human perspective of people
on HEC and one of the basic question in the questionnaire was did they have a
problems with the elephants of which a large majority of the houses interviewed
had the problem
In total 112 houses were interviewed in all the four corridors. The data shows the
intensity of HEC is varying in different sites, in each level the intensity of elephant is
very different. In the selected area some of the families have high intensity of HEC
where some of the families have no elephant problem. But the study in the area the
clearly shows that the HEC problem is getting more and more complex and over the
time it could get more complex as the population of elephants according to the
Forest department is increasing.

Elephant problem
No

No. Of Household
11

Yes

101

Total

112
Table 1: Number of Household

25

No. of Household
No
Yes

Chart 1: Number of Household

Around 90% of the studied households are facing at least one type of problem from
elephant and 10% of the household does not have any problem regarding the
conflict. Studies shows that the people living near the forest boundary are the most
affected houses.

Corrido
r
Corridor
1
Corridor
2
Corridor
4
Corridor
5
Total

Affected
household

No.
Of
surveyed

77

82

12

12

13

4
102

5
112

household

Table 2: Affected Household

26

% of affected household
120
100
80

% of affected
household

60
40
20
0
Corridor 1

Corridor 2

Corridor 4

Corridor 5

Chart 2: Affected Household

The number of houses having HEC in each site is estimated from the data (Table 2).
Number of houses surveyed in each site is different in accordance to the length of
the corridor. The density of the household is also different in each site. The first
corridor shows 93% of houses are affected by HEC while in Corridor 2 all of the
houses surveyed are affected with HEC in atleast one way, and 69% and 80% for
corridor 4 and corridor 5 respectively.
The Questionnaire survey of elephant conflict required about 4 types of
problem result in human elephant conflict. The surveyed household HEC was
categorized under crop damage, property damage, people injured/ killed/ attacked
by elephant, fear of elephant, which does not allow free movement. The responses
of the people affected by the HEC are mentioned below in Table 3

Sl.
No.

Type of HEC

No.
Of
Affected

Crop Damage

87

Property Damage

24

Injury/ Death

Affect Free Movement 101

Table 3: Type of HEC

houses

27

No. of houses Affected

120
100
80

No. of houses
Affected

60
40
20
0

Chart 3: No. of House Affected

Assessment Of Crop Damage

The raiding of crops by Elephant is one of the major component of HEC., causing loss of
livelihood and retaliation against elephant. The damage caused by elephant can caused
devastating effects on individual farmers. There are 18 species identified which are
commonly destroyed by Elephants during the study

Common Name

Scientific Name

Banana

Musa domestica

Coconut

Cocos nucifera

Jack Fruit

Artocarpus heterophyllus

Coffee

Coffea arebica

Mango

Mangifera indica

Papaya

Carica papaya

Ginger

Zingiber officinale

Pineapple

Ananas comosus

Rubber

Hevea brasiliensis

Tapioca

Manihot esculenta

Palm Oil

Elaeis guineensis

Cocca

Theobroma cacao

Cabbage

Brassica oleracea var. capitata

Pepper

Piper nigrum
28

Cashewnuts

Anacardium occidentale

Tea

Camellia sinensis

Arecanut
Areca nut
Table 4: Common plantation in the area

17 types of crop identified which elephant in the study area raids. The intensity of crop
raiding in each site is different from another. Crop raiding are higher in the households
having large area of lands and more cultivation and HEC is also more in the lands which
have banana and jack fruit cultivation. Mixed cultivation and monoculture are both
observed in the cultivation area. The intensity of the crop raiding by elephant in each site is
analyzed by the questionnaire survey and direct observation.

Crop damage last year

Elephants at some point or the other destroyed all the 17 crops identified in the area during
the year.

Crops

No. of respondents

Banana
Coconut
Jack Fruit
Coffee
Mango
Papaya
Ginger
Pineapple
Rubber
Tapioca
Palm Oil
Cocca
Cabbage

59
28
14
43
3
0
2
6
3
3

Pepper

16

Cashewnuts
Tea
Arecanut

9
4

1
1

23

No. of plants Area

damaged
Damaged
8706
137
110
2717
31
0
10
300
328
430
204
300

666
63
715
2557

15 cent
4.25 Acres

50 kg
12 cent

2 cent
300
Acres

kg/1

50 cent

Table 5: Amount of crops damaged

The site wise analysis of the crop was done in the entire four corridors and the most
damaged crops were identified and in this case banana had the most no. Plants damaged
by Banana and followed by Arecanut, both of which are the major crops in the area. Study
also includes fruited plants like pineapple and jackfruit. But these are few in number, as in
most of the sites in the corridor does not the prior as a major crop. The other reason why

29

Banana and Arecanut is the most damaged crop because it is one of the most favorable
meal for elephants.

Crop damage in the last 5 years

The total crop damage caused by the elephants in the last 5 years time period was
assessed in the study. The purpose of the study was to analyze the status of crop raiding is
been increased or decreased within the recent years. Through the study it was clear that
there was a increase in the crop damage in the recent years in most of the sites. In certain
sites the area have damaged decreased.

Crops

No. of respondents

No. of plants Area

damaged
Damaged

Banana
Coconut
Jack Fruit

70
44
10

38786
610
145

Coffee

49

Mango
Papaya
Ginger
Pineapple
Rubber
Tapioca
Palm Oil
Cocca
Cabbage
Pepper
Cashewnuts
Tea
Arecanut

3
1
2
5
5
6

6940
56
3
10
840
1005
2660
204
1500

1
1
22
8
6

3081
166
8135
7195

36

30 cents

15.35
3000kg

Acres/

50 kg
35 cent

2 cent
4 Acres
50 cent

Table 6: Crop damaged over 5 years

The collected data showed that Banana was the crop, which has damaged in the highest
number. Elephants destroyed 38768 bananas, this was followed by tea and Arecanut. 8135
tea plants were raided and 7195 Arecanut was destroyed within 5 years from the study
area. The damage to coffee, pepper and tapioca were also high.
The site wise analysis of crop raiding in the last year was done and the crop damage
in the highest no. in reference to the corridor was identified. Among which banana was the
most raided crops. It is difficult to compare different corridors, as the sample of each of the
corridors is different. Table 7 describes the level of crop raiding in each corridor

Crops

Corridor 1

No. of crops Damaged

Corridor 2 Corridor 4 Corridor 5

Tota

30

Banana
Coconut
Jack Fruit
Coffee
Mango
Papaya
Ginger
Pineapple
Rubber
Tapioca
Palm Oil
Cocca
Cabbage
Pepper
Cashewnu
ts
Tea
Arecanut

5847
66
108
2307
31
0
10
100
300
0
204

0
2
341
63
715
1195

2087
55
65
391
0
0
50
200
0
350
0
0
0
325

485
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

27
16
2
0
0
0
0
0
28
28
0
300
0
0

8446
137
175
2717
31
0
60
300
328
378
204
300
2
666

0
0
30

0
0
20

0
0
1312

63
715
2557

Table 7: Crop damage corridor wise

Status of Crop Damage

The crop raiding by elephants in the study area within the last five years was asked

in the survey. The question asked whether the elephant problem has increased or
decreased over the period of time. Table 8 shows the responses of the people for the
following question.

Site
Corrid
or 1
Corrid
or 2
Corrid
or 4
Corrid
or 5
Total

Increa
sing

Decrea
sing

Same

52

13

3
65

1
22

0
4

Table 8: Status of crop damage

It is observed that Corridor 1,4 and 5 had HEC problems increasing over the period of 10
years except Corridor 2, where HEC has reduced over the period of time.

31

Seasonality of Crop Damage

Assessment of the season was crop raiding by elephants takes place were asked in the
survey. The objective is to understand the rate of elephants rate in relation to the season.
On the basis of the survey it was clear that during rain the HEC was higher in the
comparison to other seasons. There could be various factor in determining the HEC, one
such attribute is season. It is the season when mangoes and jackfruit are ripe; bananas are
also in plenty in this season.

During this season the mitigation measures are also

vulnerable which allows more flow of elephants, break in the power supply. EPT destroyed
due to erosion, falling down of trees on EF etc.

Months
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
Septemb
er
October
Novembe
r
Decembe
r

Corridor
1
2
2
4
10
15
52
51
33

Corridor
2
0
0
0
3
3
10
11
3

Corridor
4
3
2
4
6
3
3
4
0

Corridor
5
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1

Seasona
lity of
Crop
Damage
6
5
10
20
22
67
68
37

18
6

0
0

1
1

1
1

20
8

Table 9: Seasonality of Crop damage

Seasonality of Crop Damage

80
70
60
50
40
30

Seasonality of Crop
Damage

20
10
0

Chart 4 : Seasonality of crop damage

32

ASSESSMENT OF MITIGATION MEASURES

Different types of mitigation measures are practiced in the observed sites to

deter elephants. These measures are used to reduce elephant entry in to the private land
and to reduce crop raiding. Therefore implementing mitigation measures reduces Human
Elephant Conflict in a certain extent.
Only one type of mitigation measures was observed throughout the study area. They
are categorized as the mitigation measures supplied by Government and the mitigation
measures used by farmers But there are a few instances where farmer have the funds to
adopt their EF or any other stable mitigation method.

Government authorities and forest department have the responsibility to reduce HEC for the well
being of both human and elephant. To reduce the HEC, forest department provides three types of barriers
in the study site. They are Elephant Proof Trench (EPT), Electric Fence (EF). It is observed that HEC
mitigation is not 100% success by the implementation of mitigation measures. The continuous
monitoring and maintenance is necessary to make the barrier effective.
Presence of
Barriers
Yes
No
Total

Corridor
Corridor
Corridor
1
2
4
72
10
1
8
2
11
80
12
12

Corridor
5

Total
4
0
4

87
21
108

Table 10: Presence of Barriers

Effectiveness of Government Barriers

Effectiveness of Government implemented barriers are analyzed by stake holder interviews
and direct observation. The failure of barriers is mainly due to unsystematic
implementation and lack of maintenance. The carelessness on the barriers by Government
authority and the local people accelerate the degradation of the mitigation measures. It
increases crop raiding, financial loss and HEC intensity in the site. Damages in the
mitigation measures are observed at many locations in various sites.
In corridor 1,2,4 more than 90% of the mitigation measures taken by government is not
workings due to various reasons

Destroyed by elephants
Not properly maintained
Disabled by FD due to tree felling
Not electricity through the lines
Tree fell over it
Technical difficulties

33

EF is the most used mitigation method in most of the corridors and just a single case of EPT
in Corridor 4 and no cases of EPW.

Percentage of
No. of
success
Respondents
0%
41
1-10%
4
10-50%
25
50-75%
2
75-100 %
12
Table 11: Percentage of Mitigation success

No. of Respondents
0%
1-10%
10-50%
50-75%
75-100 %

Chart 5 : Percentage success of mitigation methods

ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY DAMAGE

Property damage by elephant is an issue to concern in the study. Through the
survey, it was identified that 32 households affected property damage by elephant.
Different types property damage was reported. Details of property damage by elephant in
the surveyed households are given below (Table 12).

Details of the
property Damage
Destroyed Fence
Destroyed Pipe line
Destroyed shed
Destroyed Boundary
wall
Destroyed water tank

No. of
respondent
s
6
5
4
6
1
34

Destroyed front yard

2
Destroyed house
1
Table 12 : Assessment of property damage
Table 12
ASSESSMENT OF HUMAN ATTACK
HEC in the study area is also measured using the data collected about human injury, attack
and human kills by elephants. The details about number of people injured, killed and
attacked by elephant are asked in each household. As a result, the number of human
attack in the households was gathered. Comparing to other types of HEC, human attack is
very less in all sites. There were only 3 cases of minor injury by elephants and none of them
were a direct attack but injuries during chasing away Elephant.

Status of crop damage

The crop raiding by elephant in the study area within the last ten years and in the historic
period are asked in the survey. The data is correlated with the presence of elephant in those
areas. The survey asked about whether crop raiding is increasing or decreasing or
remaining without any change in the all 4 selected Corridors

Crop
Raiding
Corridor
1
Corridor
2
Corridor
4
Corridor
5

Increase

Decrease

Same

52

13

Table 13: Status of Crop damage

35

Increase
Decrease
Same

Chart 6: Status of crop damage

Except for Corridor 2 the level of elephant problem is increasing. While a minor part of
Corridor also suggested that the HEC problem are decreasing but the study was in favor of
HEC increasing in corridor 1, 4, 5 and decreasing in Corridor 2.

Assessment of Elephant problem in a year.

The study of the corridor also asked the household to determine the problem caused by
elephant in an average over the past year, past 5 years , 10 and 20 years. To understand
the frequency growth or decline of elephants during the last two decades.

Class
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
Class 5
Total

Frequenc
y
1 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 20
21 to 50
51 to 100

Corridor
1
29
13
13
8
1
64

Corridor
2
5
4
0
1
0
10

Corridor
4

Corridor
5
5
0
1
0
0
6

3
1
0
0
0
4

Table 14: Assessment of elephant problem in a year

Elephant Corridors

India has an estimated wild population of about 25,000-28,000 elephants, roughly 50 per
cent of the world's Asian elephant population. These range across 26 Elephant Reserves
spread over about 110,000 sq. km. forests in northeast, central, northwest and south India.
Of the 88 elephant corridors identified, 12 are in northwestern India, 20 in central India, 14
in northern West Bengal, 22 in northeastern India and 20 in southern India. Of the total,
elephants are regularly using 77.3 per cent of the corridors. Fragmentation of elephant

36

habitat was most severe in northern West Bengal followed by northwestern India,
northeastern India and central India respectively. The least fragmentation was noted in
southern India. Only 28.5 per cent of the corridors in the country are one kilometer or below
in length. However, on a regional basis, about 65 per cent of the corridors in southern India
are one kilometer or below in length. In southern India, 65 per cent of the corridors are
under the Protected Area network and/or under Reserve Forests and 65 per cent of the
corridors are fully under forest cover. In comparison, for example, 90 per cent of the
corridors in central India are jointly under forest, agriculture and settlements and only 10
per cent are completely under forest. On a countrywide basis, only 24 per cent of the
corridors are under complete forest cover. Settlements and the resulting biotic pressure in
corridors are serious issues and throughout India, only 22.8 per cent corridors are without
any major settlements.
On a zonal basis, the highest number of corridors was seen in northern West Bengal, which
has one corridor for every 157 sq. km. of available elephant habitat. The lowest number
was in southern India, where one corridor exists for every 1,995 sq. km. of the available
habitat. Similarly for northeastern India, one corridor exists for every 1,764 sq. km., central
India has one corridor in every 1,775 sq. km. and northern India has one in every 460 sq.
km. Of the identified corridors, about one third (30 per cent) are of high ecological priority
and 67 per cent are of medium priority. Based on conservation feasibility, 19.3 per cent are
of high priority, 55.7 per cent of medium and 25 per cent of low priority.
The southernmost elephant populations of India range over the two principal
mountain chains of southern India (the Western Ghats and a part of the Eastern Ghats) in
the states of Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. There are about eight
populations within this range based on contiguity of habitats.
Northern Karnataka has about 40-60 elephants isolated from the other populations of the
Western Ghats. The elephants are present in Uttar Kannada and Belgaum districts. The
elephants inhabiting the crest-line of Karnataka are highly scattered in South Kanara,
Mangalore, Shimoga and Chikmangalur districts. The moist deciduous forest of the Bhadra
Wildlife Sanctuary is the major elephant habitat that lies on the Malnad plateau on the
eastern flanks of the Western Ghats. The largest single population of elephants in Asia
occupy areas south of this region extending from the Brahmagiri hills to the Eastern Ghats,
comprising the Nilgiri hills of Tamil Nadu, the Bandipur-Nagarahole Protected Area complex
of Karnataka, Wayanad in Kerala and the Nilgiri Ranganswamy Temple Sanctuary of
Karnataka adjoining the Satyamangalam, Kollegal, Hosur and Dharmapuri Forest Divisions.
The region has diverse vegetation types with over 3,300 sq. km. out of a total of about
12,600 sq. km. lying within the Protected Area network. This complex is estimated to have a
minimum of 6,300 elephants.
Other than these large populations, an isolated herd of about 30 elephants inhabit the
Kaundinya Wildlife Sanctuary in the Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh that have originally

37

migrated from the Hosur and Anekal Forest Divisions of Tamil Nadu. A small group of about
six elephants is also reported from an isolated area in Tirupattur Forest Division of Tamil
Nadu.
Down south, the elephant population of Nilambur, Silent Valley and Coimbatore belt
is spread over 2,300 sq. km. of habitat. The Anamalai-Parambikulam area is a stretch of
about 5,500 sq. km. and is home for about 1,600 elephants. This area covers a number of
forest divisions of Kerala and Tamil Nadu including Protected Areas such as the Indira
Gandhi, Paramabikulam, Chimmoni, Chinnar, Peechi-Vazhani, Thattekkad Bird Sanctuary,
Eravikulam National Park and in addition to the Palni hills, Vazhachal, Nelliyampathi,
Malayattur, Mankulam and Munnar areas.
The Idukki Wildlife Sanctuary and the adjacent areas of Ayyappankoil and Nagarampara
Ranges and part of the Munnar and Kothamangalam Forest Divisions have a small
population of elephants in an isolated patch of forests of about 300 sq. km. with a number
of settlements in and around the forests. The elephant population south of this inhabits the
Periyar-Srivilliputhur-Highwavy complex extending up to the Achenkoil forest through Ranni,
Konni, Punalur and Thenmala Forest Divisions. The southern-most population of elephants in
India, numbering about 200, ranges in the evergreen forests of Agasthyamalai, Neyyar,
Shendurney and Peppara Wildlife Sanctuaries and Kalakkad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve.
It is imperative that we begin the process of consolidating landscapes for elephants and
other wildlife through protecting and strengthening existing corridors, or creating corridors
where this is feasible and the situation not too late. This is not an easy process. It may take
years to set up a particular corridor. Each potential corridor will have to be "ground truthed"
to determine its importance, feasibility of creation and cost involved.

Assessment of Elephant Movement

The basic objective of the study is to study the HEC in the people living along the elephant
corridor, during the survey questions were asked to the household is there free movement
possible along the area foe elephants and during the survey it was clear that the the area of
corridor was directly proportional to the amount of HEC, less the area of corridor more the
amount of HEC and more the area of corridor less the HEC. For example in the first corridor,
CRP Kunnu had the least corridor space, which resulted in maximum HEC.

Free movement for

elephants
Yes
No
Total

Corridor
Corridor
1
2
52
8
24
4
76
12

Corridor
4
1
11
12

Corridor
5

Total
4
0
4

65
39
104

Table 15: Assessment of elephant movement

38

Barriers and Bottleneck to free movement of Elephants

The questionnaire also asked the household about the bottleneck and barriers, which were
present in the area which restricts elephant movement along the corridors, Many of the
responses included fields, roads etc. The objective of this study was to understand the
intervention of humans in the movement of elephants.
Barriers and
Bottleneck
Roads
Fields
Mountain
Houses
Estate

Corridor
1
12
55
1
1
1

Corridor
2
0
6
0
2
0

Corridor
4
10
0
0
0
0

Corridor
5
0
0
0
0
0

Table 16: Barriers and bottleneck

The bottleneck for each corridor shows different priority. In corridor 1 the maximum
household consider fields as a barrier while on the other hand households of Corridor 4
consider road as a major barrier while few of the households considering mountains, estate
and houses as other factors that is considered as a barrier.

Movement of Elephant (Highest Month)

A month in which the movement of elephant is highest was also asked in the study, to
understand the movement of elephants through the corridors. The aim was also to
understand the frequency of the elephants in these study areas. As the movement is
directly is in relation to the amount of HEC. From the study it was clear that during rain
when elephants are seen the maximum (Table 15), the crop raiding is also the highest (Fig
4)
Months
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
Septemb
er
October
Novembe
r
Decembe
r

Corridor
1
2
2
4
10
15
50
51
30

Corridor
2
0
0
0
3
3
10
11
3

Corridor
4
3
2
4
6
2
3
4
0

Corridor
5
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1

Movement of
Elephants

15
6

0
0

1
1

2
1

18
8

6
5
10
20
21
20
68
34

Table 17: Movement of elephants

39

60
50
40

Corridor 1
Corridor 2

30

Corridor 4
Corridor 5

20
10
0

Chart 7: Movement of Elephants

Status Of Herds
Herds are common in the area of study. Herds in this area range from 8 to 12 elephants in
an average siting with a maximum of 45 seen by households. According to the households
herds are less problematic in comparison to single elephants or elephants in pair. Herds are
cautious about their young ones and hesitate to come into the land and if they do are easily
scared back into the wild.
The statuses of herds were asked in the questionnaire regarding their visibility of
herds over the period of 10-20 years.
Status of
herds
More
Less
Same

Corridor
1
55
9
7

Corridor
2

Corridor
4
4
4
3

Corridor
5
6
1
0

4
0
0

Table 18: Status of herds

40

60
50
40
More

30

Less
Same

20
10
0
Corridor 1

Corridor 2

Corridor 4

Corridor 5

Chart 8: Status of Herd

Maximum of the household in most of the corridors tend to increase over the past 10-20
years

Status of Single Elephants

The statuses of single elephants were also asked to the household and most of the single
elephants cause most of the trouble in the areas are caused by single elephant. They have
caused the most trouble over the past 2 decades according to the survey all the 3 injuries
caused in the past years in the four corridor are all caused by single elephants. The
households were asked about the increase or decrease of elephants over the past 2
decades.

Status of Single
Elephants
More
Less
Same

Corridor
1
61
8
5

Corridor
2

Corridor
4
8
2
2

Corridor
5
9
1
1

4
0
0

Table 19: Status of Single Elephants

41

70
60
50
40

More
Less

30

Same

20
10
0
Corridor 1

Corridor 2

Corridor 4

Corridor 5

Chart 9: Status of Single Elephants

COMPENSATION FOR ELEPHANT PROBLEM

Compensation is the amount of money that the forest department given to the victims of
crop damage, property damage, elephant attack and elephant kills the households. The
compensation can be given in different types. It can be money, assets or job. For the crop
Government gives raiding, mainly financial help to the farmers. The questionnaire survey
asked about whether the respondent gets compensation from forest department for
elephant conflict.
Applied for
compensation
Yes
No

Corridor
1
41
38

Corridor
2

Corridor
4
6
6

Corridor
5
2
9

3
1

Table 20: Compensation for elephant problem

Out of the 51 households who have applied for compensation 20 of the household have not
received any kind of compensation, which is a major cause of not applying for
compensation for future losses and 25 of these received say that they have not received
compensation timely.
The amount received for compensation is also a major factor. During the study it was
noticed that they is no proper method of deciding how much compensation is to be given.
Peoples perception of whether the compensation given to the people were adequate or not
was also analyzed.

42

Compensation
Received
Adequate
Less

Corridor
1
30
1

Corridor
2

Corridor
4
2
0

Corridor
5
0
0

0
0

Table 21: People who received Compensation

There is just one household in corridor 1, which claims to have received adequate
compensation apart from which every household interviewed said enough compensation
was not received by the Forest Department. During the study it was observed that the
process of giving out compensation was very unsystematic, most of the people were not
aware about the method of receiving compensation and those who paved the way to get it
said that it was too costly and tiresome. In many of the cases in CRP Kunnu and 37 Mile
people said that the amount spend in claiming for compensation is less that the amount
received for compensation. During one of the interviews it was observed one of the
household has claimed Rs100000 received Rs250 .

Forest Dependency

As most of the sites in the corridors was near to the forest and it is important to understand
the dependency on forest and its product in these places, for which people were asked
about the cattle and their feeding techniques, the amount of fuel wood taken from forest
and the collection of NTFP. All of which are good indicators in understanding the
dependency of the household on forest and its product.
During the study it was observed that the dependency on forest was fairly less than
anticipated. There were only 4 cases of NTFP collection and of which 3 of them were for selfuse and one household earned a minimum wage selling honey. A number of household use
heir own land to feed the cattle, there were only 3 cases all from corridor 3 where the
people go to forest edge to collect the fodder for animals. The maximum forest dependency
was found in the form of Fuel wood Collection. Households were asked the percentage of
fuel wood collected from forest. The responses of which are given in Table 20.

Fuel Wood
Collected
Class A
Class B
Class C
Class D

Frequenc
y
1%-25%
26%-50%
51%-75%
76%100%

Corridor
1

Corridor
2

Corridor
4

Corridor
5

5
13
4

4
0
0

0
3
1

0
0
0

29

Table 22: Forest Dependency

43

35
30
25
Class A 1%-25%

20

Class B 26%-50%
Class C 51%-75%

15

Class D 76%-100%

10
5
0

Chart 10: Forest Dependency

Only a few responses were received and among which the maximum are in the range of
76%-100%. As most of the household in the region has gas connection and the houses that
do not have gas connection were dependent on fuel wood from their own lands. The study
showed that most of the houses use both gas and fuel wood and those who dont have their
own land depended upon forestland for wood.

BEST METHODS TO STOP HEC (People's Perception)

The people residing in the elephant conflict area and having elephant problem

for a long years are asked to say their opinion about the best methods to stop HEC. From
the people's perception there is number of methods to stop elephants. From experience
people are suggested the following methods.
1. Strong Electric Fence
2. Stone Wall
3. Elephant Proof Wall
4. Elephant drive into dense forest
5. Stop Deforestation
6. Night guarding
7. Sound crackers
9. Make the elephant habitat for feeding inside the forest
10. Street light
11. Relocation
12. Separate the forest boundary from private lands.

44

This according to me was the most important part of the survey; as it helps to understand
the perception of people on what can be done to reduce HEC. People with higher HEC
problem in the area have suggested relocating from the area. But it was also noticed that
the people who had low HEC also wanted to move, but the motivation of such people were
quite different. Many of the people complained about the Electric Fences and recommended
that fixing it could reduce most of their troubles regarding HEC. Many people also
suggested putting up streetlights and making trenchs but relocation and strong or proper
EF remains people best alternative to reduce HEC.
The people in the area were also asked about their view about the Human Elephant
co-existence. 4 options were given
1. Coexistence is not possible
2 Coexistence is possible only if there are adequate safeguards and compensation
3. Conflict is inevitable we have to learn to adapt and live with it
4. Conflict is not an issue.
Most people in places like CRP Kunnu and 37 Mile said that coexistence in not possible but
the percentage of which was higher in CRP Kunnu where the HEC problem seemed quite
genuine while in 37 Mile it seemed the motivation to move from the place due to other
reasons tainted their response.

Discussions
The human Elephant problem in Nilambur Brahmagiri corridor in Kerala is critical in terms of
crop damage as Elephants destroyed around half of the production along with other wild
animals like deer, pigs and monkeys. As agriculture is the main occupation in these areas
HEC causes a great economic turmoil in these household. The compensation provided by
the government is way too low to substitute for the losses occurred to the household. Apart
from the loss occurred the lives of the people living in these areas are under constant
threat. The land use changes leading to depletion of forested areas in the edge habitats
appear to have significant bearing on the magnitude of economic loss due to crop raiding
by wild elephants. This closely agrees with the propositions of Barnes, (1995) in Africa and
Sukumar (1991) and (Fernando et al. 2005) in Asia that loss of elephant range increases the
probability of contact between elephants and human settlement and thus leads to an
increase in crop raiding.

This suggests an association between the amount of land

transformed by agriculture and the level of problem elephant activity (Hoare 1999). In
many of the sites of corridor is very limited which causes the elephants pry into human
settlements. On the other hand it is biased to jut consider just a single side of the story. The
people living in these areas have suffered a considerable loss over the period of time and

45

are not those who have inhabited this land recently and in all the consideration about
saving the Elephants we cannot refuse the basic rights of the people. In all the sites there
never has been a case where a villager has killed an elephant for his own protection,
moreover in many of these places elephants are considered deities and are respected, not
harmed.
CRP Kunnu in corridor 1 had the highest density of elephants and according to study
can be considered that it is the most vulnerable place in all the sites. The density of the
elephants have increased over the period of 10-20 years and the 2 household which claim
that the HEC has decreased over the period of time is due to the location were their houses
are situated (steep hill- Difficult for the elephants to climb). Their are measures taken by
the government but are not maintained properly and are not consistent. Measures taken by
the FD are short terms, and not enough work is been done to pursue long term measures
The mitigation measures taken by the government in most of the areas are not maintained
which one of the major cause of the increase of elephant population in the area. Most of the
houses claim if the EF (major mitigation adopted by the FD) was maintained properly the
conflict would reduce by a large percentage. Not one site in all the corridors has their EF
working; this shows the lack of government intervention and commitment in keeping the
households safe. Traditional mitigation methods are also observed in the areas of Nilambur
and Brahmagiri, which in hand seems their last resort against the elephants.
The mitigation measures implemented by farmers in Wayanad are similar to
the short term, active deterrence methods used for controlling HEC throughout Africa and
Asia (OConnell-Rodwell et al. 2000; Osborn and Parker, 2003; Sukumar et al., 2003; Osborn
and Hill, 2005). Crop guarding through the use of Machan combined with group shouting
and throwing flaming sticks was found to be most effective for all kinds of animals. Similar
findings have been observed in protected areas of Nepal. Strudsrod and Wegge (1995) in
their study at Bardia National Park reported that guarding using different combinations of
means is the most effective for crop protection. Similarly, at Nepals Chitwan National Park
Weber (1995) stressed that crop guarding using Machan is highly effective. In my study
more than 50% respondents reported that private fencing is highly effective than guarding.
On the other hand, in concern with elephant, the major threats to the long-term
conservation of the elephant in the Western Ghats include further fragmentation of habitat
from developmental activities, continued poaching of bulls for ivory, and the escalation of
human-elephant conflicts resulting in public antagonism toward the species. Therefore, the
goals of management should be to consolidate the habitats and preserve the corridors to
avoid further fragmentation, take steps through integrated land use planning at a
landscape level to reduce and, eventually, eliminate human-elephant conflicts in a phased
manner, and build up a demographically and genetically vibrant elephant population by
protecting the tusked males from ivory poaching and corridors from developmental threats.

46

Even though considerable amount must be spent in short term methods but the focus on
the end of the day should be on long term methods and every site should be analyzed to
whether the mitigation currently used are enough for reducing conflict or not and steps
should be taken accordingly.

Conclusion
Every measure appears to work in some areas and fail in others, and there is no single
surefire way of arresting conflict. The effectiveness of any measure is dependent on the
degree of desperation of the concerned elephants. A general rule of thumb appears to be
that if they have other crops or forage available, they may not challenge the mitigation
measure.
However, should they have no other option but target crops for their survival, then they will
overcome any challenge in their way sooner or later. Elephants and humans are intelligent
and resourceful mammals competing for resources, and mitigation should not only involve
minimizing conflict but also compensate the affected people while educating politicians,
public and the media.

Decision Making Framework

In the past two decades the number of HEC has increased over the four corridors. The
government is mainly adopting short-term methods to control HEC in different areas, but
this method do not grantee the reduction of Elephants or assures the safety of the people.
Hence the government should venture in long-term methods to control HEC. In the given
matrix (Table 23) the types of mitigation methods that can adopt in different area has been
mentioned. All the sites should have a primary protection from the elephants in the forms of
trench or EF, even though the occurrence of Elephants has decreased. Other mitigation
methods mentioned are on the basis of data collected and according to the suggestions
given by the residents of the area. The conclusion is drawn from what we know of the
factors influencing conflict and lesson learned from various mitigation methods tried across
elephant habitat.

Decision Making Matrix

Corridors
Sites

Boys
Town

37
Mile

1
CRP
Kunnu

Chaparam

2
Valanto
d
47

Example
Short term
Measures
Guarding
Electric Fence/ Trench
Elephant proof Wall
Scaring Squad
Translocation
Culling
Compensation
Long Term
Measures
Habitat Protection and
Forest Management
Protection of Corridors
Removal of People
Insurance
Forest service
Payment
Avoid Deforestation
Education and
Awareness

Corridors
Sites
Example
Short term
Measures
Guarding
Electric Fence/ Trench
Elephant proof Wall
Scaring Squad

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

4
Lakad
i

Appangap

48

Translocation
Culling
Compensation

Long Term
Measures
Habitat Protection and
Forest Management
Protection of Corridors
Removal of People
Insurance
Forest service Payment
Avoid Deforestation
Education and
Awareness

X
X

X
X

Table 23: Decision making matrix

REFERENCE

Alastair Nelson, Posy Bidwell and Claudio Sillero-Zubiri, 2003. A Review of

Human-Elephant Conflict Management Strategies, 5(12): 311-376

Ali S. A, 1990. The Moghul emperors of India as naturalists and sportsmen.

Journal of the BombaynNatural History Society, 31: 833-861.

Arivazhagan C and Ramakrishnan, 2010. Conservation perspective of Asian

elephants in Tamil Nadu, Southern India. IJBT 1(Special issue), 15-22

Balasubramanian M, Baskaran N, Swaminathan S. and Desai A.A, 1995. Crop
raiding by Asian elephant, Elephas maximus in the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve,
South India. In: A week with Elephants: Proceedings of the International

Seminar on Asian elephants. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 12-52.

Balmford A, Moore J.L, Brooks T, Burgess N, Hansenn L.A, Williams P and
Rahbek C, 2001. Conservation conflicts across Africa. Science, 291: 2616

2619.
Baskaran N, 1998. Ranging and resource utilization by Asian elephant
(Elephas maximus Lin.) in Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, South India. Ph.D., Thesis,
Bharathidasan Univ.Thiruchirapally.
49

Bist S.S, 2002. Man-elephant conflict: Causes and control measures. Zoos

Bombay. 533-534.
Caitlin E. O'connell-Rodwell, Timothy Rodwell, Matthew Rice and Lynette A.
Hart, 2000. Living With The Modern Conservation Paradigm: Can Agricultural
Communities Co-Exist With Elephants? Case Study in East Caprivi, Namibia

Biological Conservation, 9: 381-391.

Fernando P, Wickramanayake E, Weerakoon D, Jayasinghe LKA, Gunawardene
M and Janaka HK, 2005. Perceptions and patterns in human-elephant conflict
in old and new settlements in Sri Lanka: insights for mitigation and

management. Biodiversity and Conservation, 14: 2465-2481.

Ferrel V. Osborn Guy and E.Parker, 2002. Community Based Methods To
Reduce Crop Loss To Loss Elephants: Experiments In The Communal Land Of

Zimbabwe Pachydem.
Hart, L.A. and O'Connell, C.E, 1998. Human conflict with African and Asian

elephants and associated conservation dilemmas. Pages 14.

Hill, C., Osborn, F. and Plumptre, A.J. (2002) Human-Wildlife Conflict:
Identifying the problem and possible solutions. Albertine Rift Technical Report

Series Vol. 1. Wildlife Conservation Society

Hoare, R.E., (1995) Options for the control of elephants in conflict with people.

Pachyderm, 19, 54-63.

Hoare, R. E., 1999. Determinants of humanelephant conflict in a land-use

mosaic. Journal of Applied Ecology, 36 (5): 689700.

Hoare R.E. and Du Tiot J.T., (1999) Coexistence between people and elephants

in African savannas. Conservation Biology, 13: 633639.

Jayson E. A, 1999. Studies on crop damage by wild animals in Kerala and
evaluation of control measures. Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi,

Kerala.
Lahiri-Choudhury D.K, 1999. An interim reports on the status and distribution
of elephants in Northeast India. In: The status of the Asian Elephant in the
Indian Sub-continent. IUCN/SSC report. (Ed.) J.C. Daniel. Bombay Natural

History Society, Bombay.

Leimgruber P, Gagnon J. B, Wemmer C, Kelly D. S, Songer M. A and Selig E. R,
2003. Fragmentation Of Asias Remaining Wild lands: Implications For Asian

Elephant Conservation animal Conservation, 6: 347359.

Li Zhang Ning Wang, 2000. An Initial Study On Habitat Conservation Of Asian
Elephant (Elephas Maximus), With A Focus On Human Elephant Conflict In

Simao, China biological Conservation, 112: 453459.

Kangwana K, 1995. Human Elephant Conflict: The challenge ahead.
Pachyderm. 19: 11-14
50

Kulkarni J, Mehta P, Boominathan D and Chaudhuri S, 2007. A Study of manelephant conflict in Nagarhole national park and surrounding areas of Kodagu

district in Karnataka, India: Final Report. Envirosearch, Pune. 36-61.

Kulkarni J, Mehta P and Hiremath U, 2008. Man-elephant conflict in Sindhudurg
and Kolhapur districts of Maharashtra, India; case study of a state coming to
terms with Presence of Wild Elephants. Final Technical Report. Envirosearch,

Pune. 67-74.
Martina M. I and Di Fonzo, 2007. Determining correlates of human-elephant
conflict reports within fringe villages of Kaziranga National Park, Assam.

University of London, 12-30.

Moss C.J, 1988. Elephant Memories - Thirteen Years in the Life of An Elephant

Family. William and Morrow Company, New York.

Naba K Nath, Bibhuti, Lahkar, Namita Brahma, Santanu Dey, Jyoti P Das,
Pranjit K Sarma and Bibhab K Talukdar, 2009. An assessment of human-

elephant conflict in Manas National Park, Assam, India, 6: 309-316.

Nyhus P and Tilson R, 2004. Agro forestry, elephants, and tigers: balancing
conservation

theory

and

practice

in

human-dominated

landscapes

of

Southeast Asia. Science Direct 104, 87-97

Olivier R. C. D, 1978. On the ecology of Asian elephant. Unpublished Ph. D.

Thesis, University of Cambridge.

Osborn F.E and G.A. Parker, 2003. Living with elephants MZEP 2(37). Lewisam
Ave, Chisipite, Harare, Zimbabwe.

Parker G.E, Osborn F.V, Hoare R.E and Niskanen L.S, 2007. HumanElephant
Conflict Mitigation: A Training Course for Community-Based Approaches in
Africa. Participants Manual. Elephant Pepper Development Trust, Livingstone,

Zambia and IUCN/SSC AFESG, Nairobi, Kenya.

Philip J.Nyhus, Ronald Tilson and Sumianto, 2000. Crop Raiding Elephant And

Conservation Implication At Way Kambas National Park Sumatra Oryx, 34(4).

Pimm S.L, Russell G.J, Gittleman J.L and Brooks T.M, 1995. The future of

biodiversity, 269: 347350.

Prithiviraj Fernando, Eric Wikramanayake, Devaka Weerakoon, Jayasinghe
L.K.A, Manori Gunawardene And Janaka H.K, 2005. Perceptions And Patterns
Of HumanElephant Conflict In Old And New Settlements In Sri Lanka: Insights
For Mitigation And Management. Biodiversity And Conservation, 14: 2465
2481.

51

Ramakrishnan U, Santhosh J.A, Ramakrishnan U and Sukumar R, 1998. The

population and conservation status of Asian elephants in Periyar Tiger

Reserve, South India. Current Science, 74: 110114.

Santiapillai C. and Jackson P, 1990. The Asian elephant on action plan for its

conservation. IUCN/ssc Action plans, gland Switzerland

Santia pillai C and Sukumar, 1996. Elephant mortality in Sri Lanka, Gajah, 12:

48-54.
Saunders D.A, Hobbs R.J, Margules C.R, 1991. Biological consequences of

ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology, 5: 1832.

Sukumar R. and Gadgil M, 1988. Malefemale differences in foraging on crops

by Asian elephants. Animal Behavior, 36: 12331255.

Sukumar R, 1989. The Asian Elephant: Ecology and Management. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, UK

Sukumar R, 1991. Ecology of the Asian elephant in southern India. Feeding

habits and crop raiding patterns. Journal of Tropical Ecology. 6 (1): 33-53.
Sukumar R, 2003. The Living Elephants: evolutionary ecology, behavior and

conservation. Oxford University Press, New York

Studsord J. E and Wegge P, 1995. Park people relationships: A case study of
damage caused by park animals around the Royal Bardia National Park, Nepal.

Environmental Conservation, 22: 132-142.

Thouless C.R, 1994. Conflict between humans and elephants on private land

in northern Kenya. Oryx, 28: 119-127.

Thouless, C.R. and Sakwa, J. (1995) Shocking elephants: fences and crop

raiders in Laikipia district, Kenya. Biological Conservation, 72, 99-107.

Vidya T. N. C, Fernando P, Melnick D. J and Sukumar R, 2005. Population
differentiation

within

and

among

Asian

elephant

(Elephas

maximus)

populations in southern India, 94: 71-80.

Tammy E Davies, Scott Wilson, Nandita Hazarika, Joydeep Chakrabarty,
Dhruba Das and Dave J. Hodgson, 2011. Effectiveness of intervention methods

against crop-raiding elephants

Taylor R. D, 1999. A Review of Problem Elephant Policies and Management
Options in Southern Africa. Human-Elephant Conflict Task Force, IUCN African

Elephant Specialist Group, Nairobi, Kenya.

Tchamba M.N, 1996. The problem elephants of Kerala: a challenge for

elephant
Thirunavukarasu M, 2014. Assessment of human elephant conflicts in
Dharmapuri forest division, Tamil Nadu, India. Tamil Nadu Forest Department

Report 16
Walpole M.J. and Leader-Williams N, 2001. Masai Mara tourism reveals
partnership benefits. Nature, 413, 771.
52

PEOPLE'S PERCEPTION ON HUMAN ELEPHANT CONFLICT, ITS INTENSITY AND

MITIGATION MEASURES IN A FRAGMENTED ELEPHANT HABITAT OF NILAMBUR AND
BRHAMAGIRI

APPENDIX
Date. Corridor..
Place.
Lat. .. Lon. . Waypoint No. .
. Sl. No...
I. General Details
53

1. Name:
2. Number of family members _____
3. Community ___________
4. How much land do you own? Major crops?
5. Annual income of family (Rupees) __________
II. Peoples perception on Human Elephant Interaction and Conflict
1. Have you had any problems with elephants? (Yes/No)
a. Crop damage: (Yes/No)
b. Property damage: (Yes/No)
c. People killed/injured/attacked by elephants: (Yes/No)
d. Fear of elephants which does not allow free movement: (Yes/No)
2. Do elephants come to your land (Yes/No)
3. Why do elephants come to your land?
a. For crop raiding
b. Used as a path for passing from one place to another
c. Other (Specify) ________________________________________
4. Details of crop damage
a. How much crop damage was there last year?
i. Crop ______________ (acres/numbers)
ii. Crop ______________ (acres/numbers)
iii. Crop ______________ (acres/numbers)
b. On an average how much crop damage has occurred (last 5 years)?
i. Crop ______________ (acres)
ii. Crop ______________ (acres)
iii. Crop ______________ (acres)
c. Has crop raiding increased or decreased over the last 10 years?
Increase/Decrease
d. On an average how many times do elephants cause problems in a year?
_______
e. Five years back, on an average how many times did elephants cause
problems in a year?
f. Ten years back, on an average how many times did elephants cause
problems in a year?
g. Twenty years back, on an average how many times did elephants cause
problems in a year?
h. When are elephants present in your area? all year/seasonal/occasional
i. When does crop raiding take place? all year/seasonal/occasional
j. In
which
month/s
is
crop
raiding
the
highest?
Month/s_________________________
5. Details of crop protection
a. Has the government set up any barriers to stop elephant intrusions?
i. EPT/ EF/ both/ nothing
ii. When was this implemented (Year/s______)
iii. Are these working: Yes/No
iv. If not working, why? _________________________________________
v. Percentage success
1. EPT____%
54

2. EF____%
3. Other (Specify) ____________________
______%
6. Details of property damage __________________________________________
7. Details of death/ injury/ attack if any____________________________________
8. How is normal life affected?
a. Fear while going/returning from work (early morning/late evening)
b. Fear to visit relatives/market in the evening
c. Fear of children going to school in the morning
d. Time spent in guarding crops/ sleeplessness
e. other______________________________________________________
III. Corridor
1. Is free movement of elephants possible in this area? Yes/ No
2. Where are the barriers/ bottlenecks to free movement?
3. Where are the elephants moving to and from?
4. Is the direction of their movement related to the season?
Describe____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
__
4. In which months is elephant movement the highest? Month/s
_________________________
5. When are female elephant groups seen in this area? All year/seasonal/occasional
6. Are you seeing fewer or more herds than say 10-20 years ago?
7. Are you seeing fewer or more lone elephants than say 10-20 years ago?
IV. Forest Dependency
1. Do you have cattle? Cows/ Buffaloes/ Goats (Numbers)
2. Where do you graze your cattle?
a. Cows: Stall fed/ Fallow land/ forest edge/ inside forest
b. Buffalo: Stall fed/ Fallow land/ forest edge/ inside forest
c. Goats/sheep: Stall fed/ Fallow land/ forest edge/ inside forest
3. Are you involved in fodder collection? (Yes/No)
a. Where are how far do you go for fodder collection?

55

b. Do you collect all year or in a particular season? All year/ season/

______months
4. Do you collect any NTFPs? Yes/No
a. How many members of your family are involved in NTFP collection?
b. What are the NTFPs collected? NTFP and approx.
quantity_________________
c. What is the annual income of your family from NTFP collection?
____________
d. Do you collect any wild edibles from the forest?
Details___________________
5. Fuel wood collection
a. Collected for self/selling
b. What percentage of your annual fuel wood use comes from the forest?
____%
6. Is there any small timber/bamboo/cane collection for household/agriculture/other
uses?
V. Compensation for loss
1.
2.
3.
4.

Have you applied for compensation for crop loss? Yes/No

Is the compensation provided in a timely manner?
Is the compensation provided adequate? Example _____________
Are there instances where you have not applied for compensation? Why?
__________________

VI. Perceptions on conflict and coexistence

1. What in your opinion can be done to minimize conflict in this landscape?
2. Are there any trends/ patterns you have noticed regarding HEC over the last
ten years?
3. What is your view on human-elephant coexistence?
a. Coexistence is not possible
b. Coexistence is possible only if there are adequate safeguards and
compensation
c. Conflict is inevitable we have to learn to adapt and live with it
d. Conflict is not an issue

56