Understanding the Nature and Extent of Human-Elephant Conflict in Central Nepal

A research report submitted to The University of Queensland

Submitted by Ganesh Pant (Student# 42798996)

Master of Environmental Management

Supervisor Professor Marc Hockings

Program Director, Environmental Management The University of Queensland

June 2013

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. 1 Abstract ............................................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Study area .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 8

Questionnaire survey ................................................................................................................................. 8 Key informant interview ........................................................................................................................... 9 Damage data and location mapping ..................................................................................................... 9 Data analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 10

Results ............................................................................................................................................... 11 Nature and extent of HEC ............................................................................................................................. 11 Financial loss ............................................................................................................................................. 13 Trend in HEC .............................................................................................................................................. 13 Temporal pattern of HEC ........................................................................................................................ 14 Spatial pattern of HEC ............................................................................................................................. 16 Perception of local people ..................................................................................................................... 20

Discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 22 Nature of HEC ............................................................................................................................................. 22 Crop raiding ............................................................................................................................................... 23 Property damage and human casualty .................................................................................................. 23 HEC and elephant behaviour ................................................................................................................ 24 Spatial pattern of HEC ............................................................................................................................. 25 Attitude of people ..................................................................................................................................... 26

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 26

Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................... 27

References ....................................................................................................................................... 28 Annex-1 Questionnaire for Household Survey ................................................................... 32

Annex-2 Number of HEC incidents in wards of each buffer zone VDCs and municipality .................................................................................................................................... 37

1

Understanding the nature and extent of human-elephant conflict in central Nepal

Abstract

Conservation of mega herbivores has been a big challenge in human dominated landscapes

as they frequently come into conflict with humans. Asian Elephant (Elephas maximus) is a

typical example in this regard as human-elephant conflict is one of the major threats for

long-term survival of this flagship species of wildlife. This study examined the aspects of

human-elephant conflict in the buffer zones of Chitwan National Park and Parsa Wildlife

Reserve through household questionnaire surveys, key informant interviews, site

observations and analysis of the reported cases of damage in the last five years. The study

reveals that 290 incidents of elephant damage were reported between 2008 and 2012 with

a high concentration of incidents in a few locations. Property damage (53%) is the most

common type of reported damage. Crop damage is reported less often but household

surveys reveal it to be most frequent. In addition, there were human casualties, including 21

deaths and four serious injuries. More than 90% of the human casualties occurred between

2010 and 2012. More than two third of the respondents (70%) have the perception that

human-elephant conflict has increased substantially over the last five years. One bull

elephant was responsible for majority of the human-elephant conflict incidents from 2010

onwards in the study area. Despite the increased HEC incidents in the area, considerable

number of respondents (37%) showed positive attitude towards elephant conservation.

There was no relationship between the elephant damage experience and people’s attitude

towards elephant conservation.

2

Introduction Asian elephant, a key biological species in the tropical forests of Asia, is listed as endangered

on the IUCN Red list (Choudhury et al., 2008), mainly due to loss and fragmentation of its

habitat and conflict with humans (Sukumar, 1993). The population of wild Asian elephants is

estimated to be between 38,500 and 52,500, whereas the number of captive elephant is

around 16,000 (Sukumar, 2006). The elephant population in most range countries has been

declining as increased human populations have caused loss and degradation of forest

habitat, fragmentation of breeding populations and increased human-elephant conflict

(Hoare, 1999, Perera, 2009). Thus, habitat loss and fragmentation and human-elephant

conflict are priority areas of action for ensuring long-term survival of wild elephants both in

Asia and Africa (Hoare, 2000, Sukumar, 2006).

Human-elephant conflict (HEC), the interaction between people and elephant that causes

negative impact on people, elephant and environment, is one of the obstacles for

biodiversity conservation (Parker et al., 2007). This is one of the biggest challenges to the

countries like Nepal having significant role in conservation, as 23% of its total geographical

area is under protected area system (DNPWC, 2013), and provide one of the important

habitats for Asian elephant. There is increasing likelihood of conflict as populations of

wildlife, humans and livestock are increasing and wildlife habitats are shrinking. Elephant is

the most pervasive species causing more than 40% of the conflicts and responsible for 70%

of human casualties in Nepal (Bajimaya, 2012). Elephants do not necessarily cause the

greatest damage but they are considered as the biggest threats to the people living in close

3

proximity to the elephant habitats. People have greatest fear from elephants as they

damage crops, destroy property, and cause injury and death to human (Parker et al., 2007).

Conservation of wildlife in human dominated landscapes must consider the social and

economic implications when wildlife forage on crops, damage properties or pose serious

threat to human safety (Treves et al., 2006). People living in vicinity of elephant habitats

bear disproportionate costs of elephant conservation due to increased human-elephant

conflicts and develop negative attitude towards elephant conservation (Parker et al., 2007).

The future of elephants in both Africa and Asia will depend largely upon the attitudes and

activities of humans and this may in turn depend on how HEC is managed (Hoare, 2000).

One of the most serious causes of human-wildlife conflict is the fear of being killed by

wildlife (Thirgood et al., 2005). Damage by wildlife can change people’s perception towards

wildlife especially when damage exceeds a level of tolerance (Hill, 1998). Safety of self and

family is the major concern that determines the attitude of people towards wildlife and the

higher level of fear generally result in more negative attitudes (Røskaft et al., 2007).

Attitudes of local people is vital in wildlife conservation and the attitude may vary according

to gender, age, education and past experiences with the particular species of wildlife (Hill,

1998, Røskaft et al., 2007). Older people generally have more negative attitudes, as do

people who have experienced damage from wildlife while people with higher levels of

education tends to be more positive towards wildlife (Røskaft et al., 2007).

Elephants were once distributed throughout lowland Terai of Nepal. They were abundant in

the central part around the area that is now Chitwan National Park (Olivier, 1978). Wild

elephants in Nepal are currently distributed in four isolated populations ranging over 10,982

4

km2 of forest habitat in lowland Terai (DNPWC, 2008). The estimated number of resident

wild elephants in Nepal is between 107 and 145 (DNPWC, 2008, Pradhan et al., 2011). The

eastern population comprises of 7 to15 resident animals and over 100 migratory animals

from India that move seasonally through 2,228 km2 of forest area. In Central Nepal, an

estimated population of 20 to 25 elephants mostly reside in Parsa Wildlife Reserve and

Chitwan National Park. The central population ranges in relatively intact forest habitat over

3, 227 km2. The western and far western population consists of 60 to 80 and 15 to 20 wild

elephants respectively (DNPWC, 2008, Pradhan et al., 2011).

The population of wild elephants in central Nepal increased from an estimated 13

individuals in 1980 to 21 in 1989 (Smith and Mishra, 1992). This population has shown

gradual increase and the most recent estimate is 20 to 25 wild elephants residing mostly in

Parsa Wildlife Reserve with seasonal movements to Chitwan National Park (Velde, 1997).

The habitat occupied by wild elephants in central Nepal has carrying capacity estimated to

sustain at least 200 elephants. However, planning is needed to address human-elephant

conflict if public support for elephant conservation is to be maintained (Smith and Mishra,

1992). The elephant population in central Nepal has come in conflict with human’s relatively

less than eastern population (DNPWC, 2008). HEC recently spiked around CNP and PWR as

elephant killed 11 people in a 10 months period although the reasons behind this sudden

increase in HEC incidents is not understood (Pradhan et al., 2011).

HEC occurs wherever people and elephant coincide, which is an obvious challenge for

elephant conservation (Hoare, 2000, Sitati et al., 2003, Sukumar, 2006). An increasing

human population has intensified the conflict between human and elephants when

5

elephants eat or trample crops. Hundreds of elephants and people are killed as a result of

conflict annually. Thus, HEC is a serious concern to both the protected area manager and

local community (Sitati et al., 2003). The long-term future of elephants depends on

effectiveness of the measures taken to mitigate such conflicts (Sukumar, 2006, Hedges and

Gunaryadi, 2010). To effectively implement mitigation measures, a thorough understanding

of the extent and spatial and temporal patterns of HEC is required (Barnes, 2009). However,

most of the HEC mitigation measures implemented so far are reactive and done on ad hoc

basis without the benefit of these data (Parker et al., 2007).

A study by (Bhatta, 2006) has emphasized the need for detailed assessment of the HEC in

Nepal including the nature and extent of damage caused by elephants as a basis for

developing measures towards its mitigation. Despite the severity of the problem of HEC in

Nepal, there is no comprehensive strategy to guide mitigation measures in the country.

Most of the measures for HEC mitigation in Nepal are reactive and implemented to control

the crisis situation that develops after a major conflict incident (Pradhan et al., 2011). In this

context, the present study is an attempt to systematically analyse pattern of human-

elephant interaction across the landscape in central Nepal.

Study area

The study was carried out in the buffer zones of two protected areas in southern part of

central Nepal viz. Chitwan National Park (CNP) and Parsa Wildlife Reserve (PWR) (Figure 1).

The elevation of the study area ranges from 150 m to 950 m above mean sea level (DNPWC,

2013). CNP, first protected area of Nepal, was declared in 1973 and designated as UNESCO

world heritage site in 1984. CNP (932 km2) encompasses one of the last surviving natural

6

ecosystems of Terai region (DNPWC, 2012a). PWR (449 km2) was established in 1984 to

maintain habitat for wild elephants (DNPWC, 2013).

Figure 1 Locations of respondent households in the buffer zones of Chitwan National Park and Parsa Wildlife Reserve

The study area lies in humid sub-tropical climatic zone with distinct summer, monsoon,

winter and spring seasons. The annual precipitation is dominated by monsoon rain

occurring between June to October (DNPWC, 2012b). The buffer zone of PWR extends over

11 Village Development Committees (VDCs) of Bara, Parsa and Makawanpur districts with

an area of 298 km2. The total human population in the buffer zone of PWR is 91,155 living

in 14,750 households (DNPWC, 2012b). Similarly, the buffer zone of CNP spreads over 34

VDCs and 2 municipalities of Chitwan, Nawalparasi, Parsa and Makawanpur districts with an

area of 750 km2. There are 2, 23,260 people living in the buffer zone of CNP in 36,193

7

households (DNPWC, 2012a). Buffer zone is an area surrounding national parks or reserves

designated to provide forest resources to local people regularly. This is basically impact zone

intended to reduce pressure of local people on park and vice versa (DNPWC, 2012b).

Methods

Questionnaire surveys, key informant interviews and field observations were used to collect

primary data. Secondary data were collected from the office records of CNP, PWR and

relevant Buffer Zone User Committees (BZUCs) as well as from the literature. Since the lead

researcher has worked in CNP for three years between January 2009 and December 2011,

observations over that time are also reflected in the discussion.

Questionnaire survey

Based on HEC records from CNP and PWR and consultation with park staff, 48 settlements

from 44 wards of 14 VDCs and one municipality within the buffer zones of CNP and PWR

were identified as affected by damage from wild elephants within last five years. VDCs and

municipalities are the smallest administrative units in Nepal that are further divided into

wards (hamlets) for the ease of management. VDCs are the local government body in rural

areas equivalent to municipalities in urban areas.

The household questionnaire (Annex 1) was used to survey 303 households from these

affected settlements. Every 10th household from affected settlements was selected and

face-to-face interviews were conducted with the head of the household by field assistants

who had been trained in survey methods. If the household head was not present at the

home, the most experienced member of the family was chosen for interview. If no one was

8

present at home when the field assistants visited, the next household was selected for

interview. Verbal consent of the respondent was taken before conducting interview and

none of the respondents declined to participate in the survey.

The questionnaire surveys were conducted between December 2012 and January 2013. Out

of 303 respondents, 190 (63%) were male and 113 (37%) were female; 215 (71%) were from

the buffer zone of CNP and 88 (29%) were from the buffer zone of PWR. The mean age of

respondents was 44.26 (n=303, SD= 15.00) and the youngest and the oldest respondents

were 18 and 90 years of age respectively.

Key informant interview

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 key informants including protected

area managers, experts and representatives from conservation partners, representatives

from buffer zone organizations and media persons. Their knowledge of human-elephant

conflict and its causes, measures taken and effectiveness and the possible solution to the

problem was documented. Out of 30 interviewees, 27 were male and 3 were female. Of

these, 11 were community representatives, 9 were park managers, 7 were experts and 3

were from the media.

Damage data and location mapping

When villagers experience HEC, they can report it to the concerned Protected Area (PA)

Office through the BZUC and can claim compensation. It has been estimated that about 80%

of the incidents are reported (Basnet, 2011). For this study, we compiled data on damage by

wild elephants in the buffer zones over the last five years from the offices of CNP and PWR

and the relevant BZUC offices. To understand the spatial distribution of crop damage,

9

human casualty and property damage by wild elephants, we visited the actual damage sites

and recorded the geographical locations of these sites using handheld GPS units.

In addition, we have used data on movement of one bull elephant in and around CNP over a

period of about one and half months between November 21 and December 31, 2012. The

elephant was GPS collared in CNP jointly by park staff and technicians from National Trust

for Nature Conservation (NTNC) to monitor its ranging pattern in relation to increased HEC

in this area.

Data analysis

Both quantitative and qualitative techniques were used for analysing data. Quantitative

data were entered in Microsoft Access and Excel and processed to generate information on

trend and pattern of HEC. Data were analysed using simple descriptive statistics in Microsoft

Excel and the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Chi-square tests were conducted

to determine the relationships between attitude of people on elephant conservation and

elephant damage experienced by them. The data on geographical locations of HEC

incidents were entered in ArcGIS 10.1 for spatial analysis. The value of estimated loss and

compensation in US $ were calculated from Nepali rupees using the median value from

monthly average exchange rate for US $ to Nepali rupees over the last five years between

January 2008 and December 2012.

10

Results Nature and extent of HEC

Between January 2008 and December 2012, 266 households from the buffer zones of CNP

and PWR reported 290 incidents of HEC. Of these, 219 households reported only one case of

damage, 21 households reported more than one incident and one household was affected

four times. Households reporting damage represent less than one percent of the more than

50,000 households in the buffer zones of CNP and PWR (DNPWC, 2012a, DNPWC, 2012b).

The incidents were reported from 16 out of 42 VDCs within buffer zones and one of the two

municipalities in the buffer zones. The surveys were conducted only within affected

settlements of the VDCs and one municipality. Most (79%) surveyed households reported

being affected from HEC. The damages caused by elephants were broadly categorized as

property damage, crop damage or human casualty. Of the affected households, 168

reported only one type of damage, 67 households reported two types and four households

reported all three types of damages.

Based on the reported cases of HEC incidents, property damage was the most common

form of damage for which people claimed compensation, comprising 53% of the total HEC

incidents (Table 1). In contrast, the survey data showed that crop damage is the most

frequently experienced form of HEC (77%) followed by property damage (24%) and human

casualties (3%).

11

Table 1 Type of elephant damage and number of reported incidents in buffer zone of Chitwan National Park and Parsa Wildlife Reserve between 2008 and 2012

Damage Type

Damage

HEC Incidents

Sub-total (Percentage of

total incidents) Property

damage

Stored grain only 56

153 (53%) House only 48 House and stored grain 33

Others

16

Crop damage

Paddy 98

112 (38%) Wheat 5 Maize 5 Banana 4

Human casualty

Human death 21

25 (9%) Human injury 4 Total 290

(Source: CNP, PWR and BZUC Records)

Paddy was the most raided crop in central Nepal with 87% of the compensation claims

related to paddy raiding followed by wheat (5%), maize (5%) and banana (4%). However,

survey data shows that wild elephants damage seven types of crops in this area. Based on

the survey responses, paddy is the most raided crop followed by maize, wheat, banana,

millet, sugarcane and mustard.

During this period, 21 people lost their life and four people were seriously injured in

elephant attacks in CNP and PWR and their buffer zones. Out of 25 victims, 19 were male

and six were female. Ages of victims ranged from 8 years to 71 years. Of 25 attacked by wild

elephants, 11 were trampled in their own home, 10 in the forest either in the core area of

the park or buffer zone, two in the crop fields, and two on the trails on their way home.

12

Financial loss

The total damage claims between 2008 and 2012 were equivalent to US $ 37,300

comprising property loss US $ 22,060; crop loss of US $ 13,340 and US $ 1,900 for treatment

cost for human injury (Table 2). In addition, park record shows that total compensation

equivalent to US $ 40,667 was paid to the families of people who were killed by wild

elephants during this period. The average annual household income in the study area i.e.

rural central Terai of Nepal is US $ 2,535 with average household size of 5.6 (CBS, 2011).

Table 2 Summary of financial loss from elephant damage in buffer zone of Chitwan National Park and Parsa Wildlife Reserve between 2008 and 2012 (Source: PA and BZUC Records)

Damage Type Loss (US $) Mean Range Standard Deviation

Property damage 22,060 144 4 to 1067 170.63

Crop damage 13,340 119 13 to 800 116.24

Human injury 1,900 475 111 to 1076 418.58

(Source: CNP, PWR and BZUC Records) (1 US $ = 75 Nepali Rupees)

Trend in HEC

The number of reported HEC incidents has generally increased over the study period for all

types of damage (Figure 2). The number of incidents for crop damage decreased in 2012

compared to the data in 2010 and 2011, while the incidents for property damage were

almost the same. There is the possibility for 2012 figures to be under reported as HEC

incidents occurred in 2012 but reported to PA and BZUC after January 2013 has not been

compiled for this study. More than 70% of the respondents to the household survey (n=303)

believed that the HEC incidents for all types of damage have increased over the last five

13

years. Likewise, 80 % of the key informants (n=30) agreed that HEC in central Nepal has

been increasing for the last five years.

Figure 2 HEC Trends in the buffer zones of Chitwan National Park and Parsa Wildlife Reserve over the last five years (2008-2012)

Temporal pattern of HEC

HEC incidents based on compensation claims have followed seasonal pattern for all types of

damage (Figure 3- a, c & e). Property damage incidents were distributed all year round with

the highest number of incidents in December. In contrast, crop damage peaked during July-

November and numbers of incidents were not particularly high during December-June. The

distribution of human casualty over the year followed a similar pattern as property damage

with highest incidences in December. The seasonality of damage by elephant as perceived

by respondents broadly followed a similar pattern (Figure 3- b, d &f).

14

Park Records . .

Survey Data

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Figure 3 Temporal pattern of HEC in the buffer zones of Chitwan National Park and Parsa Wildlife Reserve over the last five years (2008-2012): a, c & e- based on HEC data from park

and BZUC record and b, d & f- based on response of respondent from household questionnaire survey

More than 90 % of the respondents in the household survey indicated that all types of

damages occur mostly at night. We did not have data recorded on the time of damage for

property and crop damage by elephants. The time of human casualties by wild elephant in

central Nepal shows mixed results. Of 25 human casualties in this period, 60% occurred at

night. However, all of the casualties during the day occurred inside the forest either in the

15

core area or in the buffer zone forest, except for one incident in Meghauli VDC, where a bull

elephant entered the village following a captive female elephant.

Spatial pattern of HEC

HEC incidents were not uniformly distributed over the study area (Figure 4). Most of the

HEC incidents (93%) occurred in the buffer zone of CNP and only 7% were from the buffer

zone of PWR.

Figure 4 Spatial distribution of HEC locations between 2008 and 2012 in Chitwan National Park and Parsa Wildlife Reserve and their buffer zones

The buffer zones of CNP and PWR encompass five district of central Terai in Nepal but HEC

incidents were reported only from four districts viz. Chitwan, Parsa, Makawanpur and Bara.

More than 80% of HEC incidents were reported from Chitwan district alone followed by 14%

from Parsa, 2% from Makawanpur and less than 1% from Bara district.

16

Out of 42 VDCs and two municipalities in buffer zone of CNP and PWR, 16 VDCs and one

municipality were affected by elephant damage. The intensity of damage varied among

areas affected from HEC (Figure 5). More than 100 incidents of HEC were reported in this

period from Ayodhyapuri VDC, which is the most affected VDC. Another six VDCs

experienced between 10 and 50 incidents while 10 VDCs recorded less than 10 HEC

incidents over the last 5 years. The number of HEC incidents in wards of each buffer zone

VDCs and municipality are given in Annex 2.

Figure 5 Intensity of elephant damage in each Buffer Zone VDC and municipality HEC incidents that took place in the last five years were recorded from 53 wards of 16 VDCs

and one municipality of the buffer zones of CNP and PWR (Table 3). Of these, property

damage recorded from 46 wards, crop damage from 21 wards and human casualty from 13

17

wards. Out of 25 human casualties, two occurred in the core area of CNP and three in buffer

zone forests.

Table 3 Number of wards affected by HEC in each buffer zone VDC and municipality

VDC/Municipality Property damage Crop damage Human casualty All types of damage

Ayodhyapuri 9 6 2 9

Amlekhgunj 1 0 0 1

Bachhauli 3 0 3 4

Baghauda 3 3 0 3

Gardi 3 3 3 4

Bhandara 0 1 0 1

Gitanagar 1 0 0 1

Kalyanpur 5 3 0 5

Kumroj 3 0 0 3

Manahari 1 0 1 2

Meghauli 3 0 1 4

Nirmalbasti 4 0 2 4

Piple 0 1 0 1

Ratnanagar 1 1 0 1

Seduwa 0 1 0 1

Subarnapur 3 0 0 3

Thori 6 2 1 6

Total 46 21 13 53

Spatial analysis shows that 65% of the total HEC incidents occurred within one kilometre

from the park boundary and 88% were within two kilometres (Figure 6). No incidents were

reported more than five kilometres from the park boundary in the buffer zones of CNP and

PWR. This suggests that proximity to the park boundary could be considered as one of the

major determinants of spatial distribution of HEC.

18

Figure 6 Spatial distributions of HEC incidents in relation to distance from park boundary One bull elephant is responsible for most of the human casualties in central Nepal. The

same elephant is known to have killed at least nine people in and around CNP over the last

four years (CNP, 2012). The movement of this problem elephant between November 21

and December 31, 2012 is shown in Figure 7 with distribution of all reported HEC incidents

during the same period. Our analysis based on its movement pattern and available data on

human casualties reveals that this bull elephant is likely to have trampled 22 people from

2010 onwards including 16 out of 21 people killed in the core area and buffer zone of CNP

and PWR, 4 people killed in Bara district outside buffer zone of PWR and 2 Indian nationals

killed on the Nepal-India border. In addition, it is possible that the same elephant is

responsible for most of the HEC incidents in central Nepal over this time.

19

Figure 7 HEC locations and movement locations of one bull elephant between November 21 and December 31, 2012 (Data on elephant movement courtesy Department of National

Parks and Wildlife Conservation and National Trust for Nature Conservation, Nepal) Perception of local people

The survey respondents identified 14 species or category of wild animals that are in direct

conflict with humans in this area. These are tiger, rhinoceros, elephant, sloth bear, wild pig,

deer, blue bull, crocodile, hare, jackal, leopard, monkey, porcupine and birds. They have the

perception that tiger, rhinoceros, elephant, wild pig, blue bull and deer are the major

problem animals. Of 303 respondents, 92 % rated elephant as one of the most problematic

wild animals. The next most commonly rated most problematic wild animals based on the

severity of damage were rhinoceros, wild pig, deer, blue bull and tiger (Table 4).

20

Table 4 Respondents perception on problematic wild animals in the study area

Species or

Category

Most

problematic

Minor

Problematic

Little or no

problematic

Not

mentioned

Total

Respondents

Elephant 280 18 3 2 303

Rhinoceros 136 23 1 143 303

Tiger 46 47 1 209 303

Sloth bear 8 37 5 253 303

Wild pig 123 118 3 59 303

Deer 95 149 4 55 303

Birds 1 2 10 290 303

Blue bull 49 18 0 236 303

Crocodile 0 1 1 301 303

Hare 0 2 5 296 303

Jackal 0 1 0 302 303

Leopard 3 9 0 291 303

Monkey 8 10 0 285 303

Porcupine 2 0 0 301 303

Only 37% of the respondents showed positive attitudes towards conserving wild elephants.

This may reflect the anxiety of people after recent increase in HEC in this region as

questionnaire survey was conducted only in settlements affected by wild elephants.

However, the survey did not reveal a relationship between the level of elephant damage

experience and people’s attitude towards elephant conservation (χ2 = 1.549, df = 2, p >

0.05). Of 98 positive respondents on elephant conservation, 43% valued elephants as

21

national property, 26% considered elephants as rare wildlife species, 24% believed that

elephants help in promoting tourism and 7% regarded elephants as a God. On the other

hand, 83% of the 191 respondents who did not favour elephant conservation in this

landscape had the opinion that elephants are a threat to their life and 17% considered

elephants as a problem because of damages to crops and property. Female respondents

were more likely to have negative attitudes than males (χ2 = 7.024, df = 1, p < 0.05).

However, there is no significant difference in attitude between people living in the buffer

zones of the two different protected areas (χ2 = 1.149, df = 1, p > 0.05).

Discussion

Nature of HEC

The present study reveals that property damage is the most common form of damage by

wild elephants for which compensation was claimed in central Nepal. However, the

household survey indicated crop damage was more frequently experienced. This follows the

pattern of previous studies conducted in other countries. Crop damage is the most common

type of HEC incident in Sri Lanka (Campos-Arceiz et al., 2009) and the type of HEC incidents

followed similar patterns in India (Sukumar, 1990), China (Zhang and Wang, 2003) and Africa

(Hoare, 2000, Parker et al., 2007). The difference between compensation claim and survey

data may reflect the fact that crop damage is less likely to be reported than property

damage. This may be because local people tolerate certain level of crop damage.

22

Crop raiding

Crop raiding is part of an elephant's optimal foraging strategy and raiding peaks during

specific times of year when paddy becomes more palatable and nutritious as it approaches

harvesting (Sukumar, 1990). Paddy is the most raided crop by wild elephants in Nepal. The

crop damage by wild elephant in Nepal follows a seasonal pattern generally with two peak

seasons of crop raiding are June-July, during maize or wheat maturing period and

September-November, during paddy maturing time (Pradhan et al., 2011). Paddy is also the

main field crop of Terai region of Nepal and two crops of paddy i.e. summer and winter is

grown on the same fields if there is irrigation. The harvesting period for summer paddy is

July-August while winter paddy is harvested during October-November (Subedi et al., 1993).

The single peak of crop raiding from July to November accords with the ripening period of

paddy as the harvesting periods of both winter and summer paddy coincide with this peak.

A similar pattern of crop raiding is observed in India where crop raiding takes place during

June-August and October-November, two peaks for two different types of paddy, one

cultivated in shallow-water and the other in deeper water levels (Lahkar et al., 2007).

Property damage and human casualty

While crop raiding is considered as a normal seasonal phenomenon where crop fields are

adjacent to elephant habitat, property damage and human casualties are less predictable

and tend to be caused by problem individuals. Parker et al (2007) argued that patterns of

HEC are most strongly influenced by the individual behaviour of elephants. More incidents

of property damage in our study may be attributed to the unpredictable raiding

behaviour of male elephants. It is a common practice in the study area to store grain in the

house. Most of the cases of property damage and human casualties have occurred

during December, which is the peak time elephant can find plenty of stored rice

immediately after harvest in November.

23

HEC and elephant behaviour

Male elephants have the tendency to follow 'high risk-high gain' strategy for promoting

reproductive success. This behaviour of male elephants are far more prone than a member

of a female-led family herd to raid agricultural crops and to kill people (Sukumar, 1991).

Males are twice as likely to raid at their reproductive peak and younger males are more

likely to raid if they were following older role models (Archie and Chiyo, 2012). Some

males raid crops, damage houses for stored grain and may become very aggressive if

confronted in the process. This type of individuals are problem-elephant and responsible

for the majority of HEC incidents (Sukumar, 2006).

It is most likely that there are three types of elephants causing HEC incidents in central

Nepal. First, elephant herd which occasionally raid crops when they pass through crop field

generally during their seasonal movement. Second, single male or small group of males

raiding crops as an extension of their optimal foraging behaviour, they raid stored grains

and damages houses occasionally and may attack people in encounter. Last but not least,

the problem elephant, which is habituated to take risk in raiding crop and stored grain and

also cause human casualty in the process. One of the bull elephants in central Nepal is

problem animal, which is responsible for most of the HEC incidents from 2010 onwards.

Thus, management of this individual problem elephant would provide an immediate

solution to minimize the conflict as that problem elephant is identified.

It is considered as one of the options in minimizing HEC to remove aggressive elephants in

rare case posing danger to human life once they are surely identified (Fernando et al., 2008,

Hoare, 2012). However, removal of the animals from ‘problem component’ does not always

24

reduce HEC because other recruits in the ‘occasional raider’ sub-population (Hoare, 2012).

Developing an understanding of underlying causes of the conflict provides a basis for

devising a comprehensive strategy for conflict prevention and mitigation in order to ensure

human-elephant coexistence in this landscape.

Spatial pattern of HEC

Spatial pattern of HEC has shown few universal trend which makes difficult to predict where

HEC will take place (Sitati et al., 2003). In general, HEC is highest in close proximity to

protected areas that act as elephant refuges (DiFonzo, 2007). The distance at which villages

were located from the park also influenced HEC intensity, with decreasing conflict incidents

as the distance from the forest boundary increases (Lahkar et al., 2007). In our study area,

the frequency of HEC incident was high within a distance of one kilometre from park

boundary. However, HEC incidents were concentrated in few locations and there are no

reported cases of damage in this period from settlements inside PWR.

In western Nepal, it has been found that HEC took place mainly around the human

settlements where the park has established stable for captive elephant with female

elephants. The bull elephants damage crops and properties around these villages mostly

during the period when they come for the estrous females in the hattisar (Shrestha et al.,

2007). This is the case of central Nepal too as most of the settlements with high frequency

of HEC incidents are close to elephant stables established by park. Location of captive

elephant stable with female elephants is likely to be one of the determinants of spatial

distribution of HEC incidents, which needs further analysis.

25

Attitude of people

People develop negative attitude towards wildlife when damage by wildlife exceeds the

level of tolerance (Hill, 1998). We found mixed responses of the respondents towards

elephant conservation. Surprisingly, there was no relationship between the attitude of

people towards elephant conservation and the damage caused by elephants. It indicates

that people can tolerate certain level of damage by wildlife. This is further illustrated from

the fact that there were several cases of crop damages in the study area; people did not

even report to claim compensation. When it comes to human safety, people have more

negative attitude towards wildlife. Eight respondents out of nine who experienced human

casualty over the last five years were negative towards elephant conservation People in the

study area staged a protest to kill problem elephant in December 2012 after elephant

repeatedly killed people around CNP. This could be the manifestation of intense HEC in the

area as human casualty is worst form of HEC incidents and it’s less tolerable.

Conclusion

HEC has increased substantially over the last five years, which is equally a serious threat for

local people and elephant population in central Nepal. The increased HEC around CNP and

PWR is strongly influenced by individual behaviour of male elephants rather than

seasonal crop raiding by elephant herds. Since the spatial pattern of HEC is more difficult

to predict than the temporal pattern, there is a need of more systematic HEC recording and

analysis in order to better understand the pattern of conflicts. Likewise, ecology and

ranging behaviour of adult males and elephant herds needs to be studied which is the

prerequisite for devising comprehensive strategies to minimize HEC in this human-

dominated landscape.

26

Inadequate awareness of local people on elephant behaviour is one of the main reasons

for increased human casualties in central Nepal as they come into direct contact with

male elephant in an effort to protect their crop and property. Thus, intensive awareness

raising activities for people living in conflict zone could help to build capacity of people

to avoid interaction with elephants so as to minimize conflict and to garner public support

for elephant conservation in central Nepal.

Acknowledgements

I would like to extend my gratitude and sincere thanks to Professor Marc Hockings for his

guidance, encouragement and intellectual input to accomplish this research. I acknowledge

the financial assistance provided by Rufford Small Grants Foundation to conduct fieldwork

for this study. I thank officials at Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation

Nepal for granting research permission and sharing valuable information related to HEC and

its mitigation in Nepal. Likewise, I am indebted to staff at Chitwan National Park and Parsa

Wildlife Reserve for their support in collecting data. I thank all the respondents of

questionnaire surveys and key informant interviews for providing valuable information and

sharing their ideas. I am grateful to AusAID for providing scholarship for my study at The

University of Queensland. I appreciate Fiona Leverington, Adjunct Senior Fellow at The

University of Queensland for her editorial support. Last but not least, I would like to thank

everyone who directly and indirectly helped to complete this research successfully.

27

References ARCHIE, E. A. & CHIYO, P. I. 2012. Elephant behaviour and conservation: social relationships,

the effects of poaching, and genetic tools for management. Mol Ecol, 21, 765-78.

BAJIMAYA, S. 2012. Managing Human-Wildlife Conflict in Nepal. In: ACHARYA, K. P. &

DHAKAL, M. (eds.) Biodiversity Conservation in Nepal: A Success Story. Department

of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.

BARNES, R. F. W. 2009. The Analysis of Data from Studies of Crop-Raiding. Gajah 30, 19-23. BASNET, R. B. 2011. Human-Elephant Conflict: Comparing Human Perception on Elephant

Population in Central Nepal. A Thesis submitted to Tribhuvan University, Institute of

Forestry, Pokhara, Nepal.

BHATTA, S. R. 2006. Efforts to conserve Asian elephants in Nepal. Gajah, 25, 87-89. CAMPOS-ARCEIZ, A., TAKATSUKI, S., K.K., S., EKANAYAKA & HASEGAWA, T. 2009. The

Human-Elephant Conflict in South-eastern Sri Lanka: Type of Damage, Seasonal

Patterns and Sexual Differences in the Raiding Behaviour of Elephants. Gajah 31, 5-

14.

CBS 2011. Nepal Living Standards Survey 2010-11: Statistical Report, Volume 2. Central

Bureau of Statistics, National Planning Commission Secretariat, Government of

Nepal.

CHOUDHURY, A., LAHIRI CHOUDHURY , D. K., DESAI, A., DUCKWORTH J.W., EASA, P. S.,

JOHNSINGH, A. J. T., FERNANDO, P., HEDGES, S., GUNAWARDENA, M., KURT, F.,

KARANTH, U., LISTER, A., MENON, V., RIDDLE, H., RÜBEL, A. & WIKRAMANAYAKE, E.

2008. Elephas maximus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version

2012.2. [Online]. IUCN SSC Asian Elephant Specialist Group. Available:

http://www.iucnredlist.org [Accessed 27 May 2013].

CNP 2012. A Report on Problem Elephant submitted to Department of National Park and

Wildlife Conservation Submitted by Chitwan National Park, Chitwan, Nepal.

DIFONZO. 2007. Determining correlates of Human-elephant conflict reports within fringe

villages of Kaziranga National Park, Assam. A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of

the requirements for the degree of Masters of Research of the University of London.

28

DNPWC 2008. The Elephant Conservation Action Plan of Nepal. Department of National

Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.

DNPWC 2012a. Chitwan National Park and Buffer Zone Management Plan 2012-

2016 Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.

DNPWC 2012b. Parsa Wildlife Reserve and Buffer Zone Management Plan 2012-2016 (Final

Draft). Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.

DNPWC. 2013. Protected Areas of Nepal [Online]. Available:

http://www.dnpwc.gov.np/protected-areas [Accessed 30 May 2013].

FERNANDO, P., KUMAR, M. A., WILLIAMS, A. C., WIKRAMANAYAKE, E., AZIZ, T. & SINGH, S.

M. 2008. Review of Human-Elephant Conflict Mitigation Measures practiced in South

Asia. AREAS Technical Support Document Submitted to World Bank.

HEDGES, S. & GUNARYADI, D. 2010. Reducing human–elephant conflict: do chillies help

deter elephants from entering crop fields? Oryx, 44, 139-146.

HILL, C. M. 1998. Conflicting attitudes towards elephants around the Budongo Forest

Reserve, Uganda. Environmental Conservation, 25, 244-250.

HOARE, R. 1999. Determinants of human–elephant conflict in a land-use mosaic. Journal of

Applied Ecology, 36, 689-700.

HOARE, R. 2000. African elephants and humans in conflict: the outlook for co-existence.

Oryx, 34, 34-38. HOARE, R. 2012. Lessons from 15 years of human–elephant conflict mitigation:

Management considerations involving biological, physical and governance issues in

Africa. Pachyderm, 51, 60-74.

LAHKAR, B. P., DAS, J. P., NATH, N. K., DEY, S., BRAHMA, N. & SARMA, P. K. 2007. A study of

habitat utilization patterns of Asian elephant Elephas maximus and current status of

human elephant conflict in Manas National Park within Chirang-Ripu Elephant

Reserve, Assam. A technical report prepared by Aaranyak.

OLIVIER, R. 1978. Distribution and status of the Asian elephant. Oryx, 14, 379-424.

29

PARKER, G. E., OSBORN, F. V., HOARE, R. E. & NISKANEN, L. S. 2007. Human-Elephant

Conflict Mitigation: A Training Course for Community-Based Approaches in Africa.

Participant's Manual. Elephant Pepper Development Trust, Livingstone, Zambia and

IUCN/SSC AfESG, Nairobi, Kenya.

PERERA, B. 2009. The human-elephant conflict: a review of current status and mitigation

methods. GAJAH, 30, 41-52.

PRADHAN, N. M. B., WILLIAMS, A. C. & DHAKAL, M. 2011. Current Status of Asian Elephants

in Nepal. Gajah, 35, 87-92.

RØSKAFT, E., HÄNDEL, B., BJERKE, T. & KALTENBORN, B. P. 2007. Human attitudes towards

large carnivores in Norway. Wildlife biology, 13, 172-185. SHRESTHA, R., BAJRACHARYA, S. B. & PRADHAN, N. M. B. 2007. A Case Study on Human-

Wildlife Conflict in Nepal with particular reference to Human-Elephant Conflict in

Eastern and Western Terai Regions. Report submitted to WWF Nepal Program,

Kathmandu, Nepal.

SITATI, N., WALPOLE, M., SMITH, R. & LEADER-WILLIAMS, N. 2003. Predicting spatial aspects

of human–elephant conflict. Journal of Applied Ecology, 40, 667-677.

SMITH, J. L. D. & MISHRA, H. R. 1992. Status and distribution of Asian elephants in central

Nepal. Oryx, 26, 34-38.

SUBEDI, B. P., DAS, C. L. & MESSERSCHMIDT, D. A. 1993. Tree and Land Tenure in the

Eastern Terai, Nepal: A Case Study from the Siraha and Saptari Districts, Nepal. In:

SHALLON, D. (ed.) FAO Community Forestry Case Study Series 9.

SUKUMAR, R. 1990. Ecology of the Asian elephant in southern India. II. Feeding habits and

crop raiding patterns. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 6, 33-53.

SUKUMAR, R. 1991. The Management of Large Mammals in Relation to Male Strategies and

Conflict with People. Biological Conservation, 55, 93-102.

SUKUMAR, R. 1993. The Asian elephant: ecology and management, Cambridge University

Press.

SUKUMAR, R. 2006. A brief review of the status, distribution and biology of wild Asian

elephants Elephas maximus. International Zoo Yearbook, 40, 1-8.

30

THIRGOOD, S., WOODROFFE, R. & RABINOWITZ, A. 2005. The impact of human-wildlife

conflict on human lives and livelihoods. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY SERIES-

CAMBRIDGE-, 9, 13.

TREVES, A., WALLACE, R. B., NAUGHTON-TREVES, L. & MORALES, A. 2006. Co-managing

human–wildlife conflicts: a review. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 11, 383-396. VELDE, P. F. T. 1997. A Status Report on Nepal's Wild Elephant. WWF Nepal Program,

Kathmandu, Nepal.

ZHANG, L. & WANG, N. 2003. An initial study on habitat conservation of Asian elephant

(Elephas maximus), with a focus on human elephant conflict in Simao, China.

Biological Conservation, 112, 453-459.

31

Annex-1 Questionnaire for Household Survey Name of interviewer: Date:

Basic information

1. Respondent No.:

2. Address: VDC/Municipality- Ward No.- Village Name-

3. GPS Location: N E Human-elephant conflict

4. How long have you been living here? ……….. years 5. What problems do you have living here? Please list the problems such as flood, lack

of access to hospital, lack of access to school, lack of access to market, wild animals, lack of access to clean drinking water and others.

Major problem Minor problem

6. What are the problematic wild animals in your area?

Most problematic animals

Problematic animal Animals with little or no problem

7. What are the most serious problems caused by wild elephants (in order)? 8. What are the most raided crops (in order)? 9. In which month of the year elephant damages occur?

a. Crop damage: b. Property damage: c. Human casualty: 10. What is the time of day the damage by elephants most likely to occur (Dawn,

Morning, afternoon, dusk, night)?

a. Crop damage: b. Property damage: c. Human casualty: 11. How do you see the trend of elephant damage over the last five years?

32

I. Crop damage (Tick one)

a. Highly increased (…..) b. Increased (…..) c. Stable (…..) d. Decreased (…..) e. Highly decreased (…..)

II. Property damage (Tick one)

a. Highly increased (…..) b. Increased (…..) c. Stable (…..) d. Decreased (…..) e. Highly decreased (…..)

III. Human casualty (Tick one)

a. Highly increased (…..) b. Increased (…..) c. Stable (…..) d. Decreased (…..) e. Highly decreased (…..)

12. Have wild elephants caused any damage to you and your family (people living with

you in your house) over the last five years? a. Crop damage (Estimated loss: NRs. ………………..) b. Property damage (Estimated loss: NRS. …………….) c. Human casualty (Injured: ……., Killed :……..)

13. Have you got relief/compensation of the losses from elephant damage?

a. Crop damage (Compensation: NRs. …………………..) b. Property damage (Compensation: NRs. ………………) c. Human casualty (Treatment cost: NRs. …….…….., Relief: NRs. ……………

33

Causes of conflict

14. What do you think the major causes of human-elephant conflict?

a. b. c.

15. Why do you think elephant come to human settlement? a. Former elephant range b. In search of better forage c. Agriculture next to elephant habitat d. Problem elephant e. In search of alcohol f. In search of man to attack

16. What is responsible for the increased human-elephant conflict in this area? a. Increase in elephant population b. People and their activities c. Behaviour of elephant d. Inadequacy of preventive measures

17. Which types of elephant/group of elephants (Single male or elephant heard) cause damage? a. Crop damage: ………………………. b. Property damage: ………………… c. Human casualty: …………………..

Prevention and mitigation measures

18. What are the measures taken for minimizing human-elephant conflict in your area? (Tick only the methods practiced so far) a. Deterrents (Noise, fire crackers)

b. Elephant squad

c. Physical barriers (Trench, fence)

d. Power fence (electric, solar)

e. Awareness and training

f. Compensation/Relief

g. Capturing problem elephants

34

19. How do you rate the effectiveness of the methods practised so far to minimize damage by wild elephants? (Rate between 0 to 4 where 0 is never effective , 1 is sometimes effective, 2 is effective about half the time, 3 is mostly effective, 4 is always effective)

SN Methods Effectiveness rating

0 1 2 3 4

1 Deterrents (Noise, fire crackers)

2 Elephant squad

3 Physical barriers (Trench, fence)

4 Power fence (electric, solar)

5 Awareness and training

6 Compensation/Relief

7 Capturing problem elephants

20. Is the compensation/relief adequate? (Please tick one)

Very Adequate Adequate Partially adequate

Inadequate Completely inadequate

21. If inadequate, what should be the amount? a. Human injury b. Human Death c. Crop damage d. Property damage

22. Are you getting compensation/relief on time?

a. Yes b. No 23. If No, what should be the time frame?

a. Human injury b. Human Death c. Crop damage d. Property damage

35

Attitude towards conflict and conservation

24. Approximately how many elephants are there in your area? 25. Do you think elephants should be protected?

Yes No

Why

26. What should be done to minimize conflict between people and elephant in this area? a. Capture and relocate problem elephant b. Kill the problem elephant c. Capture and relocate all the elephants d. Support to construct permanent houses e. Support for alternative livelihood/ crops

27. Do you want human-elephant coexistence in this area? a. Yes b. No 28. If yes how?

a. b. c.

29. If no what should be done? a. Kill the elephants

b. Relocate elephants

c. Relocate people

30. If relocate people, where? a. Within buffer zone b. Outside buffer zone 31. If relocate elephant, where?

Additional Information of the respondent

32. Age

33. Sex:

34. Highest education:

35. Main Occupation:

36. Other sources of income:

37. Land holding: Irrigated land ……….. Non-irrigated land ………

38. Livestock holding

Buffalo: …. Cow/ox: ….. Goat/Sheep: ….. Pig: …… Poultry: …… Others: ….. 39. Distance to your home from nearest forest patch: ……… minutes walking

40. Distance to your crop field from nearest forest patch: …….. minutes walking

36

Annex-2 Number of HEC incidents in wards of each buffer zone VDCs and municipality

VDC/Municipality

Ward No. Property damage

Crop damage

Human casualty

All types of damage

Ayodhyapuri 1 7 2 0 9 Ayodhyapuri 2 2 0 0 2 Ayodhyapuri 3 1 0 0 1 Ayodhyapuri 4 3 0 0 3 Ayodhyapuri 5 6 5 0 11 Ayodhyapuri 6 10 3 0 13 Ayodhyapuri 7 5 4 0 9 Ayodhyapuri 8 10 28 1 39 Ayodhyapuri 9 8 5 4 17 Sub-total 52 47 5 104 Amlekhjung 5 1 0 0 1 Sub-total 1 0 0 1 Bachhauli 2 4 0 1 5 Bachhauli 3 1 0 1 2 Bachhauli 6 1 0 0 1 Bachhauli 9 0 0 1 1 Sub-total 6 0 3 9 Baghauda 2 4 1 0 5 Baghauda 5 5 11 0 16 Baghauda 6 6 3 0 9 Sub-total 15 15 0 30 Gardi 1 2 7 1 10 Gardi 4 6 2 1 9 Gardi 7 2 1 0 3 Gardi 9 0 0 2 2 Sub-total 10 10 4 24 Bhandara 6 0 1 0 1 Sub-total 0 1 0 1 Gitanagar 4 1 0 0 1 Sub-total 1 0 0 1 Kalyanpur 4 1 0 0 1 Kalyanpur 5 2 0 0 2 Kalyanpur 6 5 11 0 16 Kalyanpur 8 3 1 0 4 Kalyanpur 9 2 4 0 6 Sub-total 13 16 0 29

37

VDC/Municipality

Ward No.

Property damage

Crop damage

Human casualty

All types of damage

Kumroj 1 1 0 0 1 Kumroj 2 2 0 0 2 Kumroj 3 3 0 0 3 Sub-total 6 0 0 6 Manahari 2 0 0 4 4 Manahari 4 2 0 0 2 Sub-total 2 0 4 6 Meghauli 1 6 0 0 6 Meghauli 2 1 0 0 1 Meghauli 4 0 0 1 1 Meghauli 5 5 0 0 5 Sub-total 12 0 1 13 Nirmalbasti 1 5 0 1 6 Nirmalbasti 4 2 0 0 2 Nirmalbasti 6 1 0 1 2 Nirmalbasti 7 2 0 0 2 Sub-total 10 0 2 12 Piple 2 0 17 0 17 Sub-total 0 17 0 17 Ratnanagar 6 2 1 0 3 Sub-total 2 1 0 3 Seduwa 9 0 1 0 1 Sub-total 0 1 0 1 Subarnapur 1 6 0 0 6 Subarnapur 6 3 0 0 3 Subarnapur 9 2 0 0 2 Sub-total 11 0 0 11 Thori 1 2 0 0 2 Thori 2 1 0 0 1 Thori 3 2 1 1 4 Thori 5 3 3 0 6 Thori 7 2 0 0 2 Thori 8 2 0 0 2 Sub-total 12 4 1 17 Total 153 112 20 285

(Note: Out of 25 human casualties, two occurred in the core area of Chitwan National Park and three in the buffer zone forest area)

38