The dawn of a new year brings a story of hope, of conflict resolution. The report submitted by the HC-appointed Karnataka Elephant Task Force recommends a method that classifies all forest administrative units into three zones — the elephant conservation zone, the elephant-human co-existence zone and the elephant removal zone. Madhumitha B talks to experts.
Conflict can be seriously damaging. It can burn bridges, create foes, cause battles, injure and even destroy. On the other hand, it could also be an opportunity to understand the underlying cause, accept the differences and create a dignified harmony between the two sides by finding a common ground and providing a space that can keep animosity at bay.
A recent report by a team of experts suggests employing this method, of settling differences by stating that there is a problem and finding a way to roll out solutions for the long term, with regard to resolving human-elephant conflict in many parts of the State.
This report by the High Court-appointed Karnataka Elephant Task Force makes some very definitive and categorical suggestions that, according to its members, could not only help realise the scale of the issue, but also throw light on where it exists and how solutions can be tailored for different conflict situations.
What the report recommends, apart from solutions for specific areas, is to provide a way to deal with conflict in the long run. For this, they have drawn up a zone prioritisation method that classifies all forest administrative units into three major types or zones. The elephant conservation zone where protection of this species takes priority over livelihood goals; the elephant-human co-existence zone where balance can and should be made possible and the elephant removal zone.
In the latter, conflict is very high; elephants are in agricultural lands and what takes precedence here over conservation of elephants, is human welfare.According to the members of this report (comprising ecologists, wildlife biologists, advocates and forest officials), such a classification can result in more clarity while dealing with mitigation and provides some semblance to a somewhat ad hoc method that exists while tackling conflict in today's time on a regular basis.
This method will provide structure to the way both conservation and mitigation can be approached, felt Prof R Sukumar, Professor at the Centre for Ecological Sciences at the Indian Institute of Science and chairperson of the task force.
"There has to be some kind of strategy to mitigate conflict in the long term that gives importance to both human livelihood and elephant conservation. The fact is that over 90 per cent of elephant population exists in protected areas and reserve and wooded forests in Karnataka, yet the small population of less than some five per cent that is outside of these lands is causing disproportionate conflict.
This classification of zones is a pragmatic approach that can substantially reduce conflict and conserve large populations of elephants and, if implemented on a large scale, will be the first of its kind measure as such a methodology does not exist at the ground level," added Prof Sukumar.
Categorising forests
The zone prioritisation method, if implemented, will categorise the entire State's forests into the three areas mentioned earlier and conservation methods will be put in place according to the principles set forth for each zone.
This needs to be implemented at the level of the forest range or beat, based on ecological boundaries and with the help of maps, ground surveys and satellite imagery of the many forest areas, both connected and otherwise. Once this is done, each zone will have a certain set of principles by which it can be governed and any action or response will be based on the category of the land area.
The effort is to enable relatively conflict-free living for both species—man and animal, stated Sharachchandra Lele of the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and Environment (ATREE) and one of the members of this task force.
He further added, "The report will hopefully set some standards, a benchmark by providing an overall framework for conflict management across the forests in Karnataka by meeting the goal of objectivity and practicality. There is no argument over the fact that the survival of elephants is threatened in some areas just as the livelihood of mankind is at risk in some others.
And hence, we cannot take a lop-sided approach to managing this conflict. It has to be identified individually based on local circumstances and solutions too, and there is need to meet the requirements of specifics rather than the general."
This prioritisation, many might argue, is potentially leaning toward just one side in some areas.
The report has answers when it says, "There will inevitably be some trade-offs between these multiple goals and the extent of the trade-offs will vary by location—in some areas, prioritising elephant conservation could impose a major cost of people's livelihoods, while in others, current livelihood and development strategies would impose high conservation costs.
To strike a reasonable balance, we propose a zone-based prioritisation of management goals, which, at the scale of the entire State, are intended to promote long-term co-existence between elephants and people, but at local scales may prioritise one over the other."
Farming patterns in lands abutting forests have changed from compatible crops that never attracted elephants to purely commercial ones such as sugarcane, maize and banana that are an open invitation to these large land mammals. Increased developmental projects right in the heart of elephant range areas, both within and outside forest land, large human footprint through reckless tourism are just some of the causes for such a high conflict, felt Ajai Misra, Chief Conservator of Forests and Field Director - Project Elephant, Karnataka.
"Elephant range areas spanning non-forest areas as well (that the species uses to travel through from one forest to another ) are severely disturbed and fragmented in many parts of the State. What we need to understand is that the instinct of this species is to move through familiar pathways and corridors and that is how they exist.
Any fragmentation could cause them to detour into areas that they would never have needed to go otherwise. This is why conflict is intense at times. But there are measures in place, and coupled with awareness, involvement in welfare, rapid action or response to conflict, they can go a long way in tackling this challenge," added Misra.
Many measures in place
On the part of the State Forest Department, A K Varma, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) and head of forest force - Karnataka, stated that there is a sense of urgency since the High Court appointed the task force to deal with conflict but as custodians of the forest, the department too has been working on several measures to counter such human-elephant conflict.
Varma added, "There is serious consideration to have patrol parties equipped with GPS (global positioning system) in smaller forest areas to monitor elephant movement so that people can be forewarned and the department can take adequate measures to ensure there is no danger to people or crops. Compensations are being addressed to at a much faster pace as well."
The future can be daunting if, as a nation, we fail to take responsible decisions and in the process cause irreversible damage to the social and environmental structure of the country.
Economic growth is just about beginning in India and it is going to be a challenge what with increasing needs, felt Prof Sukumar who added, "We need to plan at the scale of landscape. Better understanding of the distribution of wildlife, their behaviour and a regulated land use pattern across landscapes could be the sustainable way forward."
A long-term plan is essential just as an organised method of tackling the conflict is key. While the force awaits the response of the Central and State governments, the bigger and more pertinent questions, however, should be: can these recommendations work, could it be an effective way of mitigating conflict, will it manage to strike the much-needed balance between human and wildlife welfare, and most importantly, can it bring about some sense of the importance and urgency of conservation and make policy makers see the potential damage and conflict they could avoid?
Conflict can be seriously damaging. It can burn bridges, create foes, cause battles, injure and even destroy. On the other hand, it could also be an opportunity to understand the underlying cause, accept the differences and create a dignified harmony between the two sides by finding a common ground and providing a space that can keep animosity at bay.
A recent report by a team of experts suggests employing this method, of settling differences by stating that there is a problem and finding a way to roll out solutions for the long term, with regard to resolving human-elephant conflict in many parts of the State.
This report by the High Court-appointed Karnataka Elephant Task Force makes some very definitive and categorical suggestions that, according to its members, could not only help realise the scale of the issue, but also throw light on where it exists and how solutions can be tailored for different conflict situations.
What the report recommends, apart from solutions for specific areas, is to provide a way to deal with conflict in the long run. For this, they have drawn up a zone prioritisation method that classifies all forest administrative units into three major types or zones. The elephant conservation zone where protection of this species takes priority over livelihood goals; the elephant-human co-existence zone where balance can and should be made possible and the elephant removal zone.
In the latter, conflict is very high; elephants are in agricultural lands and what takes precedence here over conservation of elephants, is human welfare.According to the members of this report (comprising ecologists, wildlife biologists, advocates and forest officials), such a classification can result in more clarity while dealing with mitigation and provides some semblance to a somewhat ad hoc method that exists while tackling conflict in today's time on a regular basis.
This method will provide structure to the way both conservation and mitigation can be approached, felt Prof R Sukumar, Professor at the Centre for Ecological Sciences at the Indian Institute of Science and chairperson of the task force.
"There has to be some kind of strategy to mitigate conflict in the long term that gives importance to both human livelihood and elephant conservation. The fact is that over 90 per cent of elephant population exists in protected areas and reserve and wooded forests in Karnataka, yet the small population of less than some five per cent that is outside of these lands is causing disproportionate conflict.
This classification of zones is a pragmatic approach that can substantially reduce conflict and conserve large populations of elephants and, if implemented on a large scale, will be the first of its kind measure as such a methodology does not exist at the ground level," added Prof Sukumar.
Categorising forests
The zone prioritisation method, if implemented, will categorise the entire State's forests into the three areas mentioned earlier and conservation methods will be put in place according to the principles set forth for each zone.
This needs to be implemented at the level of the forest range or beat, based on ecological boundaries and with the help of maps, ground surveys and satellite imagery of the many forest areas, both connected and otherwise. Once this is done, each zone will have a certain set of principles by which it can be governed and any action or response will be based on the category of the land area.
The effort is to enable relatively conflict-free living for both species—man and animal, stated Sharachchandra Lele of the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and Environment (ATREE) and one of the members of this task force.
He further added, "The report will hopefully set some standards, a benchmark by providing an overall framework for conflict management across the forests in Karnataka by meeting the goal of objectivity and practicality. There is no argument over the fact that the survival of elephants is threatened in some areas just as the livelihood of mankind is at risk in some others.
And hence, we cannot take a lop-sided approach to managing this conflict. It has to be identified individually based on local circumstances and solutions too, and there is need to meet the requirements of specifics rather than the general."
This prioritisation, many might argue, is potentially leaning toward just one side in some areas.
The report has answers when it says, "There will inevitably be some trade-offs between these multiple goals and the extent of the trade-offs will vary by location—in some areas, prioritising elephant conservation could impose a major cost of people's livelihoods, while in others, current livelihood and development strategies would impose high conservation costs.
To strike a reasonable balance, we propose a zone-based prioritisation of management goals, which, at the scale of the entire State, are intended to promote long-term co-existence between elephants and people, but at local scales may prioritise one over the other."
Farming patterns in lands abutting forests have changed from compatible crops that never attracted elephants to purely commercial ones such as sugarcane, maize and banana that are an open invitation to these large land mammals. Increased developmental projects right in the heart of elephant range areas, both within and outside forest land, large human footprint through reckless tourism are just some of the causes for such a high conflict, felt Ajai Misra, Chief Conservator of Forests and Field Director - Project Elephant, Karnataka.
"Elephant range areas spanning non-forest areas as well (that the species uses to travel through from one forest to another ) are severely disturbed and fragmented in many parts of the State. What we need to understand is that the instinct of this species is to move through familiar pathways and corridors and that is how they exist.
Any fragmentation could cause them to detour into areas that they would never have needed to go otherwise. This is why conflict is intense at times. But there are measures in place, and coupled with awareness, involvement in welfare, rapid action or response to conflict, they can go a long way in tackling this challenge," added Misra.
Many measures in place
On the part of the State Forest Department, A K Varma, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) and head of forest force - Karnataka, stated that there is a sense of urgency since the High Court appointed the task force to deal with conflict but as custodians of the forest, the department too has been working on several measures to counter such human-elephant conflict.
Varma added, "There is serious consideration to have patrol parties equipped with GPS (global positioning system) in smaller forest areas to monitor elephant movement so that people can be forewarned and the department can take adequate measures to ensure there is no danger to people or crops. Compensations are being addressed to at a much faster pace as well."
The future can be daunting if, as a nation, we fail to take responsible decisions and in the process cause irreversible damage to the social and environmental structure of the country.
Economic growth is just about beginning in India and it is going to be a challenge what with increasing needs, felt Prof Sukumar who added, "We need to plan at the scale of landscape. Better understanding of the distribution of wildlife, their behaviour and a regulated land use pattern across landscapes could be the sustainable way forward."
A long-term plan is essential just as an organised method of tackling the conflict is key. While the force awaits the response of the Central and State governments, the bigger and more pertinent questions, however, should be: can these recommendations work, could it be an effective way of mitigating conflict, will it manage to strike the much-needed balance between human and wildlife welfare, and most importantly, can it bring about some sense of the importance and urgency of conservation and make policy makers see the potential damage and conflict they could avoid?