�1

The Elephants in the Room: Poaching,

Conflict, Corridors, and Communities

Lucy Arnold

Bill Durham and Susan Charnley

ANTHRO 12SC - Parks and Peoples

20 October 2017

�2

Introduction

Population, Demography, and Ecology

In 2016, it was estimated that a total of about 415,000 African elephants lived in 37 1

countries across the African continent. This value reflects the first continental elephant

population decline recorded in 25 years. Looking to the East Africa region in particular, there are

about 86,000 elephants; between 2007 and 2016, the regional population fell by 87,000. Such

continental and regional declines stem mostly from increased ivory-poaching to meet the demand

in Asian markets, though elephants face a number of other threats. One such threat is the

challenge of navigating between protected and unprotected areas as elephant herds move over

their large ranges. In East Africa, at least 30 percent of elephant range lies outside protected

areas, and the combination of expanding crop cultivation and deforestation in the Tarangire-

Manyara region and other areas confine elephant populations almost exclusively to protected

areas depending on the time of year and gender-age profile of the herds.

Living in a wide range of habitats that includes grasslands, savannas, forests, and

deserts, African elephants play critical roles in a variety of ecosystems. As ecosystem engineers 2

(Appendix Figure 1a and 1b), they help to transform and mold the landscapes in which they live,

impacting numerous other species. In pushing over trees and breaking down shrubs and

vegetation, they help to convert woodlands into grasslands and create pathways that other

animals use. Their dung is involved in seed dispersal mechanisms, and by digging for water with

C.R. Thouless et al. (2016). 1

Blanc, J. (2008). 2

�3

their trunks in the dry season, they open up water resources that other species go to. In all of

these capacities, elephants have been described as keystone herbivores because many smaller

herbivore species depend on the patchiness of habitat and nutrient-rich vegetation that elephant

activities shape and maintain. Consequently, elephant conservation is important for the 3

conservation of many other species in East African ecosystems and beyond.

Poaching and Trade

In the 1970s and 1980s, ivory poaching caused devastating elephant population declines

across sub-Saharan Africa. By 1989, when a conference of The Convention on International

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) moved African elephants from

Appendix II to Appendix I of protected species, continental elephant populations had dropped

from 1.3 million in 1979 to 600,000. The shifting of elephants to Appendix I placed an 4

international trade ban on ivory, though some regulated ivory markets have been allowed to open

in the form of ivory stockpile auctions. In 1997, the 10th CITES Conference of Parties (CoP)

permitted Botswana, Namibia, and Zimbabwe to transfer their elephant populations to Appendix

II, allowing the sale of 50 tons of ivory to the Japanese market; the 12th CoP in 2002 likewise

condoned a sale of 60 tons of stockpiled ivory to Japan by Botswana, Namibia, and South

Africa. Again in 2008, CITES approved southern African countries’ sale of 108 tons of ivory to 5

Japan. However, several studies suggest that these “one-off” ivory sales are linked to increases 6

Bond. (1994). 3

Lemieux et al. (2009).4

Stiles, Daniel. (2004).5

Santiapillai, Charles. (2009).6

�4

in African elephant poaching that have occurred since 1997. Wasser et al. (2007) investigated a 7

large contraband ivory seizure that occurred in Singapore in 2002, linking it to Zamibia and

CITES 2002 permission of Zamibian ivory stockpile sales. Similarly, Bulte et al. (2007) noted 8

that the one-off sales may have resulted in heightened elephant mortality in Zimbabwe and

Kenya. Douglas-Hamilton et al. (2009) recorded continuous year-to-year increases in the 9

proportion of illegally killed elephants (PIKE) from 2003 to 2008 in the Laikipia and Samburu

regions of Kenya, citing a Kenya Wildlife Service report that blamed CITES-permitted ivory

stock sales for the doubling of illegal elephant killing that the nation witnessed between 2007

and 2008. On the other hand, some scholars argue that CITES ivory trade decisions are not to 10

blame for poaching levels, pointing to corruption, deficiencies in wildlife management practice,

and poor law enforcement as more likely supporters of poaching. Kenya and other sub-Saharan 11

countries with significant elephant populations struggle to afford and maintain adequate wildlife

protection measures in protected areas; the Kenyan Wildlife Service, for example, can only

employ one ranger per 100 square kilometers of reserve when research has suggested a minimum

of one ranger per 24 square kilometers. 12

Though the factors behind elephant poaching remain debated, the general consensus is

that increases in illegal elephant killings are fueled by the demand for ivory in Asian markets.

Illegal ivory trading activity was recorded at a 16 year high in 2013, after a doubling of activity

Maingi, John K., et al. (2012)7

Wasser, Samuel K., et al. (2007)8

Bulte, Erwin H., et al. (2007). 9

Douglas-Hamilton. (2007). 10

Stiles (2004). 11

Maingi et al. (2012)12

�5

between 2007 and 2001 and a tripling from 1998 to 2011; the surge in trade post-2007 is mostly

due to increasing ivory consumption in China. 13

Related to the increase in trade is the worst poaching surge that Africa has seen since the

1970s and 1980s. Savanna elephant populations declined by 30 percent, or 144,000 individuals, 14

between 2007 and 2014 in sub-Saharan Africa. The current rate of elephant population decline is

roughly eight percent per year, and Tanzania alone has lost 60 percent of its elephant population

since 2007. Poached carcasses are found in protected areas and unprotected areas alike,

reflecting that elephants are often not safe from poaching in either. 15

Human-Elephant Conflict

Increasingly, African elephants must navigate between fragmented habitats and human-

inhabited lands. On a continental level, protected areas account for a mere 20% of elephant

range , so elephants frequently move through the unprotected 80% of their range and cross 16

human settlements in the process. Human-elephant conflict (HEC) often arises when people and

elephants cross paths. In such conflicts, elephants damage crops or cause human death or injury,

and people might respond with retaliatory killing or other measures. HEC encounters can thus 17

be highly costly for both parties, since affected communities lose significant portions of their

livelihoods to crop and livestock damage and elephants suffer heightened risk of death by poison

or weapons. A number of different strategies - basic fences, beehive fences, chili pepper fences,

Underwood, F. M., Burn, R. W., & Milliken, T. (2013).13

Thouless et al. (2016). 14

“Great Elephant Census.”15

Hoare, Richard. (2000). 16

Galanti et al. (2006). 17

�6

shooting guns into the air and other forms of noise-making, etc. - have been tested to attempt to

reduce HEC in afflicted communities. It is not uncommon for multiple strategies to be employed

together. Because elephants are naturally drawn to crops as an efficient food source during

migration, the problem of HEC is very difficult to eradicate completely. 18

Hypotheses:

Based on the problems of poaching and HEC described above, I will investigate the following

three hypotheses:

1. Human-elephant conflict and poaching are concentrated around protected area

borders.

2. Habitat corridors reduce human-elephant conflict.

3. Human-elephant conflict and poaching are reduced under community-based

conservation schemes.

Hypothesis 1: Human-elephant conflict and poaching are concentrated around protected area

borders.

Here, I examine the intensity of HEC and poaching near protected area borders. The

following analyses are closely relevant to the broader goal of elephant conservation because they

facilitate informed strategies on where to focus the most efforts and resources against poaching

and HEC.

In 2014, Angela Mwakatobe et al. examined the frequency and impacts of crop-raiding

by wildlife in communities outside western Serengeti National Park (SNP). This region is

Lotter et al. (2014). 18

�7

predominantly inhabited by pastoralists and agro-pastoralists, with most respondents in the study

belonging to the Ikoma, Sukuma, Nata, Ikizu, Jita, and Kurya ethnic groups. Though livestock-

rearing, hunting, trade, and even fishing are all economic activities practiced in western

Serengeti, 96 percent of the respondents depended on growing crops to maintain their

socioeconomic livelihoods. Maize (corn), sorghum, and millet are the most common crops. For

the purposes of the study, data and input from nine villages were gathered along a distance

gradient from SNP over the course of a year; three villages were located within 10 kilometers of

the SNP border, three were approximately 40 kilometers from the border, and three were roughly

80 kilometers from the border. Across the villages, a total of 459 households were interviewed.

The resulting data showed that about 62 percent of the homes closest to the SNP border

experienced crop damage during the year (Figure 6a), compared to 47 percent and 53 percent of

homes in the villages at the middle and farthest distances from the border, respectively. Elephants

were reported as sources of crop damage in all three distance groupings, but they were by far the

most associated with crop damage in the three villages closest to SNP (Figure 6b). Moreover,

these closest villages reported the highest average cost of crop damage, estimating an annual

harvest income loss of roughly 54,500 Tanzanian Shillings (TSh) or 35 USD per household 19

(Figure 6c). Together, these findings indicate that elephants most frequently raid crops near PA

borders and that they cause more destruction and economic loss than other animals involved in

crop-raiding.

A number of other studies support and extend the idea that elephants are most active in

crop-raiding near protected areas. In 2009, a number of villagers in West Kilimanjaro caused the

Mwakatobe, Angela, et al. (2014).19

�8

deaths of six elephants when they chased an elephant herd over a cliff. Sayuni B. Mariki et al.

investigated this event and identified it as a retaliatory killing. They also learned of several other

local cases in which elephants were killed with spears and the carcasses left with tusks intact,

indicating that retaliatory killing and not poaching was at work. Engare Nairobi - the village

associated with the elephant killings in 2009 - is next to Kilimanjaro National Park and near a

number of other conservation areas. In conducting the study, Mariki and his associates identified

several linkages between HEC in West Kilimanjaro and the existence of protected areas there.

First, protected areas attract elephants with the safety they provide, increasing the population of

elephants in the area and, in turn, the likelihood that crop-raiding and conflicts with people will

occur. Additionally, the establishment of conservation areas tends to be coupled with decreased

land and resource access for local farmers and pastoralists, so that their livelihoods are under

greater stress. As a result, interviews conducted in the study reflected intensifying frustration

toward wildlife and conservation among locals. The following responses from locals demonstrate

the resentment that wildlife conservation efforts have fostered:

“We are angry that investors and conservationists are expanding wildlife protected areas

in order to enable wildlife to flourish and attract tourists, while we are squeezed. They want

wildlife to dominate at the expense of people.” 20

“Some of the people who participated in elephant killings had plots along the river, while

others did not, but due to the hostility towards conservation, they also followed the elephants and

chased them towards the cliff.” 21

Mariki et al. (2015). Interview no.8, Nov. 2009.20

Mariki et al. (2015). Focus Group Interview, Dec. 2009. 21

�9

Thus, it can be concluded that in places near protected areas, local resentment toward the

limited land and resource access (and thus livelihood security) that protected area initiatives

often introduce can become a factor that encourages HEC. The stresses caused by larger elephant

and human populations and periods of drought add further pressure to the situation.

In the Tarangire-Manyara region, investigations into the relationship between land-use

and elephant behavior have added further nuance to researchers’ understanding of HEC spacial

dynamics, and have also revealed important insights about the occurrence of poaching. A study

that examined elephant demography and behavior differentials in Lake Manyara National Park

(LMNP), the partially-protected Manyara Ranch, and a non-protected community-managed area

nearby reported that most elephants outside the national park were male, since males are more

given to raid crops and engage in risky behavior(Figure 4). Moreover, elephants in the ranch

were more responsive to human presence (possibly because of higher human-caused mortality

there) and had a smaller average tusk size than elephants in LMNP; these findings indicate

higher poaching levels and a need for improved anti-poaching efforts in the semi-protected area

outside the national park.

Also on the subject of poaching, a 2012 study by Maingi et al. examined poaching

hotspots in the region of Tsavo Conservation Area (TCA) in south-eastern Kenya between 1990

and 2009. The results of this study demonstrate that poaching follows a clustered pattern, with

poaching hotspots mostly situated along the edges of TCA (Figure 8). Poaching was also found

to worsen in times of drought; 54 percent of poaching events occurred during the dry season.

Road density is also correlated with poaching density because it improves poachers’ access to

different elephant habitats in the area. Moreover, the dynamics of communities near the edges

�10

reflect greater frustration with wildlife and conservation; the dissolving of communally-owned

group ranches into private properties has forced many locals to transition from pastoralism to

agriculture for sustenance. Since settled farming is much less compatible with elephants and

other wildlife then pastoralism, the communities that have made this tradition are suffering more

conflicts with wildlife and become more hostile toward wildlife conservation. Among these

groups, some elephant killings have been performed with poisoned spears as retaliation for HEC.

The combination of these facts and the clustering of poaching incidents around TCA boundaries

(closer to local communities) leads Maingi et al. to suggest local involvement in poaching. 22

To tie together the evidence and conclusions presented above, I accept my hypothesis that

HEC and poaching intensify near the borders of protected areas. The results of the west Serengeti

study follow a clear distance gradient, with conflicts between people and elephants occurring

with the greatest frequency and consequences in villages closest to Serengeti National Park.

Meanwhile, the studies from west Kilimanjaro, Tarangire-Manyara, and TCA together show

higher poaching and retaliatory killing levels and intensified resentment toward elephants and

protected area conservation near protected areas.

Hypothesis 2: Habitat corridors reduce human-elephant conflict.

In the face of growing land pressure and fragmentation, wildlife habitat corridors are

often praised as a promising solution to wildlife conservation challenges. Mara Goldman wrote

in 2009 that corridors are celebrated among conservationists not only for their design of

preserving and creating connectivity between areas, but also for their power in connecting

concepts and ideals in conservation practice; namely, they can be applied to fortress and

Maingi et al. (2012). 22

�11

community-based conservation schemes alike. At the same time, habitat corridors can have the

unintended consequence of dividing matrix landscapes amenable to the coexistence of human

communities and wildlife populations into artificial fragments of protected and non-protected

space, creating problems and conflicts that didn’t previously exist. 23

With this in mind, habitat corridors exist under varying levels of protection in East

Africa. Increasingly, corridors are falling prey to the same factors of deforestation, agricultural

activity, and human settlement expansion that they should theoretically counteract. In the

Tarangire-Manyara region alone, for example, four of the five remaining wildlife migration

corridors are seriously encroached upon by croplands and settlements. In this way, they run the

risk of promoting rather than reducing the isolation of protected areas. The Kwakuchinja 24

wildlife corridor between Tarangire National Park (TNP) and Lake Manyara National Park

(LMNP) serves as an excellent case in point and will serve as the starting point for my

investigation into the efficacy of habitat corridors in reducing HEC.

A 2015 study by Kwaslema Hariohay and Eivin Røskaft examined the extent of wildlife-

induced crop damage in three villages that lie within the Kwakuchinja corridor (Figure 7). As

expected based on the testing of hypothesis one above, Kakoye, the village closest to the TNP

boundary, experienced the most crop damage, accounting for 75 percent of all crop losses

recorded in the study region and experiencing the most contact with elephants and other animals.

The study authors also noted that most crop damage was due to elephant trampling and foraging.

Over the whole study region, the average annual loss amounted to 383 kg of crops, valued at

Goldman, Mara. (2009).23

Msoffe et al. 2011a,b; Kioko, John, et al. (2013). Newmark 2008. 24

�12

roughly $154 USD per household; some respondents reported an annual crop loss as high as 499

kg. Equaling about one-sixth of Tanzania’s per-capita GDP, this represents a very significant

household economic loss, especially considering that the per-capita GDP is likely much lower in

the villages of the study area.

As human communities in and near wildlife corridors are at risk of suffering such severe

livelihood losses, the long-term sustainability of corridors for people and animals alike is called

into question. The responses of Kwakuchinja villagers to crop-raiding reflect growing resentment

toward conservation and wildlife among those villagers experiencing the greatest losses. In part,

resentment may worsen depending on responses to HEC. Villagers in Kakoye demonstrated a

greater likelihood of reporting incidents to wildlife officers, even though they often receive no

compensation due to disorganization and functional inefficiencies in the Tanzanian bureaucracy

and wildlife department. Meanwhile, residents of the two other villages in the Kwakuchinja

corridor (Olasiti and Minjingu) relied more heavily on guarding their crops and scaring wildlife

away. Across the entire corridor, human aggression against elephants and other animals was also

an observed response to crop-raiding; thirteen and ten percent of respondents reported that they

used shooting and poisoning to combat raids, respectively.

Attitude-wise, the Kakoye villagers who suffered the most crop-raiding expressed the

greatest general dislike toward wildlife, with 84 percent of Kakoye respondents expressing

dislike compared to no more than 17 percent of members from the other two villages expressing

dislike. Moreover, only 30 percent of Kakoye respondents affirmed that wildlife should be

protected, compared to the 70-75 percent of members from the other villages who held this

�13

view. These findings carry broad implications for the future of habitat corridors; corridors 25

connecting protected areas and encompassing human settlements can become the sites of

increased conflicts between people and elephants and may facilitate rather than reduce

resentment toward elephants and their conservation, undermining long-term elephant

conservation and the benefits that it could bring to local communities.

Though the situation in the Kwakuchinja corridor encourages more skepticism toward

habitat corridors, other studies indicate that corridors can be valuable conflict mitigation and

conservation tools under the right circumstances. A 2014 study by Christian Kiffner et al.

examined the impacts of different types of land-use on mammal communities in the Tarangire-

Manyara region, identifying the highest species richness in protected national parks and non-

protected pastoral areas. The broader implications of these results is that they can be applied to

the fragmented, multi-use landscape of Tarangire-Manyara. Acknowledging that wildlife

corridors are crucial in the region because so many species are migratory, the study extended its

findings to recommendations for anti-poaching efforts in the Kwakuchinja, Lake Natron, and

Jangwani corridors and for allowing pastoralists to use the corridors along with wildlife. Another

suggestion is that ecotourism businesses use the corridors and direct some of the resulting

income toward pastoralists to compensate for restricted dry season grazing and other limitations.

The study did not test these methods, but it indicated that they would prevent corridors from

becoming “evolutionary traps” that isolate populations in stressful circumstances instead of 26

connecting them to different safe habitats. Based on these discoveries and recommendations,

Hariohay, Kwaslema Malle, and Eivin Røskaft. (2015).25

Kiffner et al. (2015).26

�14

habitat corridors are revealed to have both great potential if implemented correctly or damaging

power if not used wisely.

Another study by Valeria Galanti et al. can be interpreted as arguing in favor of habitat

corridors, examining behavioral shifts in elephants moving through protected versus non-

protected areas. Also conducted in the Tarangire-Manyara region, the study recorded that

elephants outside Tarangire National Park (TNP) were less active during the day and tended to

hide in or move through denser vegetation than elephants in the park. These results implicate that

elephants adapt their behavior to the stresses posed by proximity to people and often attempt to

avoid confrontation with humans; habitat corridors are so important because they facilitate these

conflict-avoiding behaviors in elephants by giving them safe migration routes. This study and the

Kiffner study mentioned previously both, however, emphasized that strict land use planning that

will stop further encroachment of human settlements and cultivated land into corridors are

necessary if the corridors are to retain their function. Galanti also emphasizes that land use

planning must be compatible with the needs of local communities and incorporate them as

stakeholders and collaborators. 27

Based on the specific evidence from the Kwakuchinja corridor and the broader trends

from Tarangire-Manyara, I can neither accept nor reject my hypothesis about habitat corridors

and HEC. The Galanti and Kiffner studies both show that corridors have a very important place

in conservation goals, but they agree with the Kwakuchinja case study in showing that human

settlement in and near corridors undermine the functionality of corridors and can promote HEC.

Thus, the specific land-use scheme in a corridor is critical to its efficacy. As Galanti et al.

Galanti et al. (2006). 27

�15

mention, community involvement is also very important to the broader goals underlying the

maintenance or creation of corridors; this leads me to my third hypothesis, in which I examine

how community-based conservation schemes factor into HEC and poaching levels.

Hypothesis 3: Human-elephant conflict and poaching are reduced under community-based

conservation schemes.

This hypothesis essentially investigates whether programs that give communities active

leadership, decision-making power, ownership, stakes, or involvement in conservation efforts

reduce HEC and poaching. Arrangements in which elephants and humans both benefit from a

particular conservation program are critically important to wider efforts to achieve wildlife

conservation and sustainable, equitable development for local human populations. I will start my

testing go my hypothesis by examining community-based conservation and HEC.

Most research into community mitigation of HEC has focused on community-based

methods (such as beehive and chili pepper fences around plots and crop-guarding schemes) as

potential ways to limit the frequency of crop-raiding. Such approaches are often applied in

combinations and don’t necessarily involve changes in the share of power, decision-making, and

benefits that a community enjoys or lacks in relation to wildlife conservation. However, data

from the Ruvuma Elephant Project (REP) between the Selous Game Reserve in southern

Tanzania and the Niassa National Reserve in Mozambique (Figure 9) is more inclusive,

demonstrating how community-based conservation initiatives and community-based methods

can factor into the reduction of HEC.

The REP area primarily consists of community-owned land, including village land under

the power of village and district governments and five Wilderness Management Areas, which are

�16

managed by community-based organizations authorized to protect and sustainably use wildlife

resources. REP also encompasses forest reserves managed by District Forest Officers and a game

reserve under the Wildlife Division. Overall, the area is a mosaic of miambo woodlands, villages,

subsistence-level farms, land used by livestock, and some roads. When REP started, this region

was known to suffer from high levels of ivory poaching, so most of the project’s goals are

oriented toward monitoring and reducing poaching. To do this, however, it deviates from the

usual anti-poaching approach by focusing on involving local communities in anti-poaching

efforts and on giving them incentives to combat poaching. Recognizing that HEC contributes to

elephant mortality and the drive to poach, REP also includes an HEC mitigation program that

uses beehive and chili pepper fences to deter elephants from entering crop areas.

Looking first to how this community-integrating model interacted with HEC, the two-

year period between 2011 and 2013 saw reduced use of poison against elephants and other

wildlife, and the number of elephants killed due to HEC fell from an average of eleven in 2011 to

an average of four in 2013. This indicates that multi-faceted, comprehensive community-based

conservation initiatives can be successful in reducing HEC and the harm that it causes to people

and elephants.

REP is also an excellent case study for the relationship between poaching and

community-based conservation. Before exploring this, I provide more detail about REP’s

strategies and partners. To combat elephant mortality in the border area between Selous and

Niassa, REP trains locals as game scouts and rangers, operates joint field patrols that consist of

village game scouts and wildlife officials or rangers, performs aerial surveillance to better

identify illegal activity and poaching hotspots, incentivizes good performance among patrol

�17

members, finances an informer network among locals, runs the HEC-focused programs

mentioned previously, encourages income-generating activities in the WMA communities, and

monitors wildlife densities and populations over time. In this multi-component program, locals

are closely involved in different processes and receive financial rewards for their participation.

Leadership-wise, REP is managed by multiple government agencies, several community-based

organizations, and and NGO called PAMS Foundation instead of falling under the power of a

single authority.

The impacts of community involvement and multi-agency cooperation are striking for

anti-poaching efforts. Over the course of two years from the project’s inception to 2013, a

substantial decrease in the number of poached elephant carcasses was recorded (Figure 10); the

first year saw the discovery of 216 poached elephant carcasses, while only 68 carcasses were

observed the second year. Aside from discovering and reporting carcasses and suspected

poaching events, community-based patrols seized snares, elephant tusks, firearms, and vehicles

and arrested 563 people involved in poaching. Only one other anti-poaching unit in Tanzania (the

Friedkin Conservation Fund, which also works closely with local communities and applies a

multi-agency approach) is known to have performed this well. In an REP performance report,

Lotter et al. attribute REP’s success to the fact that its inclusion of communities in the processes

and benefits of anti-poaching efforts allows protection and monitoring that looks more easily

beyond protected areas. Additionally, locals who might have been pulled into the poaching

network for different reasons are given a very attractive alternative in working with REP. REP’s

�18

multi-agency approach also facilitates good law enforcement practice, since it it much easier for

criminal syndicates to manipulate or corrupt single agencies than multiple agencies. 28

A study conducted in the Laikipia-Samburu ecosystem of northern Kenya builds upon the

endorsement of community conservation provided by REP. The Laikipia-Samburu study

examines the links between different land-use types and poaching levels, finding that community

conservancies and private ranches have the highest elephant densities and lowest Proportion of

Illegally Killed Elephants (PIKE) among unprotected land types (Figure 11). This is very

significant because unprotected land comprises 98.5% of elephants’ range in this area. 29

From the success of community-based conservation models in combating HEC and

poaching in REP and Laikipia-Samburu, I accept my third hypothesis.

Conclusion

To review the statuses of my three hypotheses, I accepted my first hypothesis about

higher densities of HEC and poaching near protected area boundaries, neither accepted nor

rejected my second hypothesis about habitat corridors reducing HEC, and accepted my third

hypothesis about community-based conservation schemes reducing poaching and HEC.

Together, these results carry key implications for the future of community stability and

sustainable livelihoods as well as elephant conservation. Poaching and conflict events cluster

near the boundaries of protected areas, so efforts to tackle one or both problems can maximize

their efficiency and impact by targeting areas near protected area borders. With that said, further

study into the specific distance range around parks where poaching and conflicts occur would be

Lotter et al. (2014). 28

Ihwagi et al. (2013). 29

�19

helpful moving forward: does this distance vary for different parks and animal populations, for

example? As they currently stand, habitat corridors are often not operating at maximum efficacy

because they are increasingly encroached upon by farms and human settlements, so that

elephants and other wildlife are likely to experience conflicts or confrontations with people as

they follow the routes. More study is needed into how habitat corridors can be more successful in

reducing HEC without displacing or marginalizing local communities. One interesting model

could be to allow pastoralists and wildlife to use the corridors and to put ecotourism profits from

the corridors toward pastoralist communities. It is more clear that community-based conservation

schemes can be very effective in reducing both poaching and HEC. Based on the studies I

reviewed, communities that would otherwise have high risk of becoming involved in poaching

and developing resentment and animosity toward elephants and conservation can derive a host of

benefits from active inclusion and involvement in anti-poaching and conflict-mitigation efforts.

As human populations in East Africa continue to grow, pastoralists are forced to become farmers,

and settlements continue to expand toward corridors and protected areas. Meanwhile, ivory

demand continues to climb, and elephants continue to damage human livelihoods and lose their

own lives to the hands of poaching and retaliatory killing. In the midst of so many converging

conflicts, strategies that integrate communities, land use planning, and prioritization of high-risk

areas will become only more central to the goal of coupled community welfare and elephant

conservation.

�20

Figure Appendix

Figure 1a and 1b: One way in which elephants act as ecosystem engineers is by breaking

down trees and shrubs, which over time can help to convert savanna woodlands into

grasslands. Shorter term, these activities open up vegetation, making it is easier for other

smaller animals to travel.

�21

Figure 2a and 2b: Inside and outside of protected areas, tusked elephants are vulnerable to

poaching.

�22

Figure 3: Talking to the game drivers, I learned that more elephants are growing into

adulthood without developing tusks; poaching is imposing a selection pressure against tusked

individuals.

�23

Figure 4: Young bull elephants like this one are the most likely to leave protected area

boundaries and raid crops. They often raid crops alone.

�24

Figure 5a and 5b: Female and juvenile elephants tend to move as matriarchal groups and are

less likely to raid crops or leave protected areas.

�25

Figure 6a, 6b, and 6c: Crop damage results on a distance gradient from Serengeti National

Park. (Mwakatobe et al. 2014)

�26

Figure 7: Map of the Kwakuchinja Wildlife Corridor with the three villages of Olasiti,

Mingjingu, and Kakoye. (Hariohay et al. 2015)

�27

Figure 8: The Tsavo Conservation Area (TCA) with poaching hotspots in all seasons, dry and

wet seasons, and the factoring of roads and other features. (Maingi et al. 2014)

Figure 9: Map of the Ruvuma Elephant Project area. (Lotter et al. 2014)

�28

Figure 9: Map of the REP (Ruvuma Elephant Project) Area. (Lotter et al. 2014)

Figure 10: Number of elephant carcasses discovered per month in REP over a two-year

period. (Lotter et al. 2014)

�29

Figure 11: Trends in the Proportion of Illegally Killed Elephants Among Land-Use Types in

the.Laikipia-Samburu region. (Ihwagi et al. 2015)

�30

Works Cited

1. Blanc, J. 2008. Loxodonta africana. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T12392A3339343. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T12392A3339343.en.

2. Bond, W. J. (1994). Keystone species. In Biodiversity and ecosystem function (pp. 237-253). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

3. Bulte, Erwin H., Richard Damania, and G. Cornelis Van Kooten. "The effects of one-off ivory sales on elephant mortality." Journal of Wildlife Management 71.2 (2007): 613-618.

4. Craigie, Ian D., et al. "Large mammal population declines in Africa’s protected areas." Biological Conservation 143.9 (2010): 2221-2228.

5. C.R. Thouless, H.T. Dublin, J.J. Blanc, D.P. Skinner, T.E. Daniel, R.D. Taylor, F. Maisels, H. L. Frederick and P. Bouché (2016). African Elephant Status Report 2016: an update from the African Elephant Database. Occasional Paper Series of the IUCN Species Survival Commission, No. 60 IUCN / SSC Africa Elephant Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. vi + 309pp.

6. Douglas-Hamilton, Iain. "The current elephant poaching trend." Pachyderm 45 (2009): 154-157.

7. Galanti, V., Preatoni, D., Martinoli, A., Wauters, L. A., & Tosi, G. (2006). Space and habitat use of the African elephant in the Tarangire–Manyara ecosystem, Tanzania: Implications for conservation. Mammalian Biology-Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde, 71(2), 99-114.

8. Goldman, Mara. "Constructing connectivity: Conservation corridors and conservation politics in East African rangelands." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 99.2 (2009): 335-359.

9. “Great Elephant Census.” Great Elephant Census, www.greatelephantcensus.com/. Accessed 1 Sept. 2017.

10. Hariohay, Kwaslema Malle, and Eivin Røskaft. "Wildlife Induced Damage to Crops and Livestock Loss and how they Affect Human Attitudes in the Kwakuchinja Wildlife Corridor in Northern Tanzania." Environment and Natural Resources Research 5.3 (2015): 72.

11. Haynes, G. (2012). Elephants (and extinct relatives) as earth-movers and ecosystem engineers. Geomorphology, 157, 99-107.

12. Hoare, Richard. "African elephants and humans in conflict: the outlook for co-existence." Oryx 34.1 (2000): 34-38.

13. Ihwagi, Festus W., et al. "Using poaching levels and elephant distribution to assess the conservation efficacy of private, communal and government land in northern Kenya." PloS One 10.9 (2015): e0139079.

�31

14. Kaswamila, A. (2007, December). Impacts of Game on household food security and cash income: A case study of Serengeti District: In: Proceedings of the Sixth TAWIRI Scientific Conference on “Consequences of Global Environmental Changes to Natural Ecosystems”. In Arusha International Conference Centre, Arusha-Tanzania (pp. 16-34).

15. Kideghesho, J. R., Nyahongo, J. W., Hassan, S. N., Tarimo, T. C., & Mbije, N. E. (2006). Factors and ecological impacts of wildlife habitat destruction in the Serengeti ecosystem in northern Tanzania. African Journal of Environmental Assessment and Management, 11, 17-32.

16. Kiffner, C., Wenner, C., LaViolet, A., Yeh, K., & Kioko, J. (2015). From savannah to farmland: effects of land-use on mammal communities in the Tarangire–Manyara ecosystem, Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology, 53(2), 156-166.

17. Kioko, John, et al. "Elephant (Loxodonta africana) demography and behaviour in the Tarangire-Manyara Ecosystem, Tanzania." South African Journal of Wildlife Research 43.1 (2013): 44-51.

18. Lemieux, Andrew M., and Ronald V. Clarke. "The international ban on ivory sales and its effects on elephant poaching in Africa." The British Journal of Criminology 49.4 (2009): 451-471.

19. Lotter, Wayne, and Krissie Clark. "Community involvement and joint operations aid effective anti-poaching in Tanzania." Parks 20 (2014): 19-28.

20. Maingi, John K., et al. "Spatiotemporal patterns of elephant poaching in south-eastern Kenya." Wildlife Research 39.3 (2012): 234-249.

21. Mariki, S. B., Svarstad, H., & Benjaminsen, T. A. (2015). Elephants over the cliff: explaining wildlife killings in Tanzania. Land Use Policy, 44, 19-30.

22. Mwakatobe, Angela, et al. "The impact of crop raiding by wild animals in communities surrounding the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania." International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation 6.9 (2014): 637-646.

23. Santiapillai, Charles. "African elephants: surviving by the skin of their teeth." Current Science 97.7 (2009): 996-997.

24. Stiles, Daniel. "The ivory trade and elephant conservation." Environmental Conservation 31.4 (2004): 309-321.

25. Underwood, F. M., Burn, R. W., & Milliken, T. (2013). Dissecting the illegal ivory trade: an analysis of ivory seizures data. PloS one, 8(10), e76539.

26. Wasser, Samuel K., et al. "Using DNA to track the origin of the largest ivory seizure since the 1989 trade ban." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104.10 (2007): 4228-4233.