कर्नाटका हाथी कार्यबल की रिपोर्ट - माननीय कर्नाटका उच्च न्यायालय को प्रस्तुत की गई।

Report of the Karnataka Elephant Task Force Submitted to the High Court of Karnataka September 2012 MD Madhusudan

3

REPORT OF THE KARNATAKA ELEPHANT TASK FORCE

Submitted to Honourable High Court of Karnataka,

September 2012

Prepared by the following members of the Task Force

1. Prof. Raman Sukumar [Chairman] Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

2. Mr. Ajay Desai Member, Project Elephant Steering Committee

3. Dr. Sharachchandra Lele Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Bangalore

4. Dr. C.H. Basappanavar Retired Forest Officer

5. Mr. S.S. Bist Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Head of Forest Force, West Bengal

6. Mr. N. Ravindranath Kamath Advocate, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore

7. Mr. B.R. Deepak Advocate, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore

8. Mr. V.V. Angadi Member Secretary, Karnataka State Legal Services Authority

9. Dr. M.D. Madhusudan Nature Conservation Foundation, Mysore

10. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) Government of Karnataka

11. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) Government of Kerala

12. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) Government of Tamil Nadu

13. Chief Conservator of Forests & Field Director, Mysore Elephant Reserve Government of Karnataka [Member-Convenor]

14. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) Government of Tamil Nadu

15. Chief Conservator of Forests & Field Director, Mysore Elephant Reserve Government of Karnataka [Member-Convenor]

4 Table of contents Table of contents ................................................................................................................................................. 4! List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................................... 6! List of Maps and Figures ..................................................................................................................................... 6! Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................. 8! Terms of Reference of the Karnataka Elephant Task Force and Measures Recommended ............. 9! Executive Summary and Key Recommendations ....................................................................................... 11! Chapter 1 Setting the context for the Karnataka Elephant Task Force’s work ............................. 25! 1.1 Background .............................................................................................................................................................................

..... 25! 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................................................. 25 1.2 Our approach ....................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Chapter 2 Elephant distribution, abundance and ecological considerations .................................... 29! 2.1 Distribution and abundance of elephants in Karnataka ................................................................................ 29 2.2 Biology of the Asian elephant ...................................................................................................................................... 32 BOX: Understanding and managing elephant human conflict ......................................................................... 34 2.3 Population and habitat viability for elephant conservation ......................................................................... 40 Chapter 3 Managing wild elephants in Karnataka: a zone-based prioritisation approach ............ 43! 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 43 3.2 Elephant management zones in Karnataka: the rationale ............................................................................

........................................................... 43 3.2 Elephant management zones in Karnataka: the rationale ............................................................................ 44 3.3 Criteria for zonation .......................................................................................................................................................... 45 3.4 Management strategies within and across zones .............................................................................................. 46 3.4.1 Management strategies in the Elephant Conservation Zone .......................................................... 47 3.4.2 Management in the Elephant-human Coexistence Zone .................................................................. 49 3.4.3 Management in the Elephant Removal Zone ........................................................................................... 50 3.4.4 Cross-cutting strategies ......................................................................................................................................... 51 3.5 Case studies ........................................................................................................................................................................... 53 3.5.1 Bandipur: strengthening management in the Elephant Conservation Zone ........................... 53 3.5.2 Malavalli Range: understanding disturbance and dispersing elephants .......................................

thening management in the Elephant Conservation Zone ........................... 53 3.5.2 Malavalli Range: understanding disturbance and dispersing elephants ....................................... 58 3.5.3 South-western Sakaleshpur: human removal or coexistence? ........................................................ 60 3.5.4 Alur-Arkalgud: coexistence or elephant removal? ................................................................................. 73 3.6 Summary and key recommendations of this chapter .................................................................................... 86 3.6.1 State-level recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 86 3.6.2 Site-specific recommendations: ......................................................................................................................... 87 Chapter 4 Corridors for elephant conservation .................................................................................... 91! 4.1 Understanding and interpreting elephant corridors ........................................................................................ 91 4.2 Strengthening habitat connectivity: the Bandipur example ......................................................................... 93 4.3 A lost corridor: example of the Punjur-Kolipalya Corridor ........................................................................

........................................................... 93 4.3 A lost corridor: example of the Punjur-Kolipalya Corridor ........................................................................ 95 Chapter 5 Other issues in the conservation of wild elephants .......................................................... 99! 5.1 Unnatural deaths of elephants .......................................................................................................................................... 99

5 5.1.1 Elephant deaths from ivory poaching ............................................................................................................ 99 5.1.2 Elephant deaths from conflict-related electrocution and gunshot wounds ......................... 100 5.1.3 Quality of post mortem reports and record maintenance ........................................................... 102 5.2 Quarrying within 100 metres of Reserved Forest boundaries .............................................................. 102 5.3 Administrative issues in managing elephant-human conflicts ................................................................. 103 5.4 Setting up toll free phone lines for rapid response to conflict situations ........................................ 104 5.5 Streamlining payment of ex-gratia .......................................................................................................................... 104 Chapter 6 Welfare and management of captive elephants in Karnataka ........................................

...................................................................................... 104 Chapter 6 Welfare and management of captive elephants in Karnataka ........................................ 107! 6.1 Capture of wild elephants to manage conflicts: a background ............................................................. 107 6.2 Capturing for domestication ..................................................................................................................................... 109 6.2.1 Recommended use of the captured elephants .................................................................................... 110 6.3 Current status of captive elephants in Karnataka .......................................................................................... 111 6.3.1 Status of privately owned elephants ........................................................................................................... 113 6.4 Welfare measures and their enforcement ........................................................................................................ 114 6.5 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................................................... 116 Chapter 7 Role of research and monitoring in elephant conservation and management .......... 119! 7.1 Reliable estimation of the distribution, abundance and structure of wild populations ...........

Chapter 7 Role of research and monitoring in elephant conservation and management .......... 119! 7.1 Reliable estimation of the distribution, abundance and structure of wild populations ........... 119 7.2 Monitoring the demography of wild elephant populations ..................................................................... 120 7.3 Monitoring the extent and status of elephant habitats .............................................................................. 120 7.4 Understanding the impact of management interventions on elephant habitats ......................... 120 7.5 In-depth and long-term monitoring of ecology, behaviour and conflict .......................................... 120 7.6 Monitoring socioeconomic contexts of elephant-human conflict and its management ......... 121 7.7 Studies on captive elephants ..................................................................................................................................... 121 Appendix A Note of dissent by Sri B.R. Deepak and Sri N.R. Kamath ......................................... 125! Appendix B Chairman’s Response to note by Sri B.R. Deepak and Sri N.R. Kamath ................ 127! Appendix C Summary of steps taken by Karnataka Forest Department in respect of barriers for mitigating elephant-human conflicts ...................................................................................................... 129! Appendix D Summary of public submissions received by KETF ......................................................

................................................................................. 129! Appendix D Summary of public submissions received by KETF ...................................................... 135! Public hearing on 18/06/2012 at Aranya Bhavan, Bangalore ............................................................................... 135 Representations received during KETF visits to Hassan and Kodagu .............................................................. 141

6 List of Tables Table 1: Elephant population estimated by sample block count method in different forest divisions of Karnataka during Synchronized Elephant Census 2010 ................................................................................................................................... 31! Table 2: Elephant population of Karnataka recorded in various censuses using the block count method during 1983-2010. Total counts were done during 1983-1993 while sample counts were done subsequently. The 95% confidence intervals are given in brackets for the 2007 and 2010 censuses .......................................... 32! Table 3: A preliminary set of ecological and social criteria proposed for designating forest ranges / sections into the three elephant management zones. .............................................................................................................................................

ges / sections into the three elephant management zones. ............................................................................................................................................. 46! Table 4: Trends in conflict as indexed by crop damage claims and disbursements, and elephant and human deaths in conflict in Bandipur before and after extensive effort to strengthen barriers along its northern boundary in 2009-10. (Source: KFD data) ........................................................................................................................................ 54! Table 5: Population and land-use information for 14 villages of southwestern Sakaleshpur .......................................... 63! Table 6: Land use in Alur taluk, Hassan district .......................................................................................................................................... 75! Table 7: Details of natural and unnatural deaths of elephants in Karnataka during 2007-12 .......................................... 99! Table 8: Distribution of government-owned captive elephants in Karnataka (2012) ....................................................... 111! Table 9: An age-sex break-up of the Karnataka’s captive elephants ..........................................................................................

..................................... 111! Table 9: An age-sex break-up of the Karnataka’s captive elephants .......................................................................................... 112!

List of Maps and Figures Figure 1: Map showing elephant density by (a) block count and (b) dung count method in 19 forest divisions of the Mysore Elephant Reserve during 2010 synchronized elephant census (from Baskaran and Sukumar 2010, ANCF Report to Karnataka Forest Department) ........................................................................................................... 30! Figure 2: Distribution of elephants in Karnataka state in relation to its forest cover. .......................................................... 44! Figure 3: In order to consolidate elephant habitats around Bandipur TR, previously unprotected deemed forests under revenue jurisdiction have been handed over to the forest department and notified under Section 4 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. ................................................................................................................................. 56! Figure 4: Areas to the north of Bandipur notified as Ecologically Sensitive Areas under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 ................................................................................................................................................................................. 57! Figure 5: Crest-line of the Western Ghats showing study region (see box) of Sakaleshpur taluk. .............................

...................................................................... 57! Figure 5: Crest-line of the Western Ghats showing study region (see box) of Sakaleshpur taluk. ............................. 61! Figure 6: Map of southwestern Sakaleshpur showing land use (Data courtesy of KFD) .................................................. 62! Figure 7: Villages and RF boundaries in the southwestern Sakaleshpur region (Data courtesy: KFD) ...................... 64! Figure 8: Locations of mini-hydel projects sanctioned or being constructed (triangles) in western Sakaleshpur and Mudigere taluks (Map courtesy of Sanjay Gubbi). .............................................................................................................. 65! Figure 9: Tunnel blasted in a thickly forested hillock for Yadakumari mini-hydel project ................................................. 65! Figure 10: Although elephant-human conflicts in the Sakaleshpur region of western Hassan Division have increased in the recent past, they are not as intense as in the areas further east [Source: data on claims provided by KFD, compiled by C.M. Bipin; map by ATREE Eco-informatics Lab & NCF GIS Cell] ............... 69! Figure 11: Map showing lands in southwestern Sakaleshpur, which farmers have consented to sell (yellow) for expanding elephant habitat. Areas where farmers have not consented to sell are shown in pink. Map provided by Hassan Division, KFD.

rn Sakaleshpur, which farmers have consented to sell (yellow) for expanding elephant habitat. Areas where farmers have not consented to sell are shown in pink. Map provided by Hassan Division, KFD. ....................................................................................................................................................... 71! Figure 12: Forest cover (including social forestry plantations) in the Alur area shows that <5% of its area has forest cover, which is scattered in small patches across the area with no connectivity. Box denotes very approximate area of the “Alur elephant” problem. .................................................................................................................... 74! Figure 13: Trend in human elephant conflict in the Hassan region, indexed by number of crop compensation claims filed and compensation amounts disbursed annually (Data: KFD) ...................................................................... 76!

Hassan region, indexed by number of crop compensation claims filed and compensation amounts disbursed annually (Data: KFD) ...................................................................... 76!

7 Figure 14: Distribution and intensity of conflict in the Alur-Somwarpet-Arklagud-Sakaleshpur region as indexed by crop compensation claims from various villages in the region between 2000 and 2009. (Data from KFD, compiled by CM Bipin, mapped by ATREE Eco-informatics Lab & NCF GIS Unit) .................................... 77! Figure 15: A comparison of the satellite imagery from 1973 (above) and 2006 (below) showing relative changes in land cover in Hassan. It is clear that the areas submerged by the Hemavathi Reservoir did not contain forest even in 1973. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 79! Figure 16: Movement of radio-collared male elephant over a 11-month period (December 2010 to November 2011). The approximate area covered is 290 sq. km. ............................................................................................................... 80! Figure 17: Existing structural connectivity across the southeastern parts of Bandipur Tiger Reserve, previously in unprotected deemed forests, have now been consolidated by being handed over to the forest department and notified under Section 4 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. ...........................................................

, have now been consolidated by being handed over to the forest department and notified under Section 4 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. ........................................................... 94! Figure 18: Although Bandipur has actively tried to strengthen barriers along its northern boundary, the existence of an Ecologically Sensitive Area to its north enables functional connectivity for elephants, especially around Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary and the Mangala-Jakkhalli-Yelachetty region. .................................... 95! Figure 19: Satellite imagery showing the loss of the Punjur-Kolipalya corridor (shown by the red arrow) over three decades. ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 96!

8 Acknowledgements The officers and staff of the Karnataka Forest Department facilitated field visits and sup- ported the KETF in various ways in carrying out its work. In addition, officials of the district administration and police also helped considerably in facilitating field visits to many areas of Hassan. Many elected representatives met the Task Force and conveyed the issues faced by people in their constituencies.

olice also helped considerably in facilitating field visits to many areas of Hassan. Many elected representatives met the Task Force and conveyed the issues faced by people in their constituencies. Scores of farmers, conservationists, and other people made the effort to meet the Task Force on its field visits and public meet- ings, especially at Rayarakoppal, Kenchammana Hoskote, Chikkallur, Mallipatna, Athi- halli, Kodlipet, Maldare, Madikeri, Nagarahole, Bandipur, Odeyarapalya and Bangalore. Many people also wrote to us to convey their concerns and suggestions. We thank them all for their participation in and support to the KETF’s consultative process.

Many individuals helped the KETF’s work in many direct ways. Prasanna Kumar, Ganga (both in the Office of PCCF – Wildlife), Papanna, Manjunath and Albert (all in the Office of CCF – Project Elephant, Mysore) helped with logistics and information to the KETF at various levels. Many drivers from the Forest Department cheerfully drove us for long hours during field visits. R. Raghunath and H. C. Poornesha at Nature Conservation Foundation helped extensively, compiling data, carrying out GIS analyses and producing most of the maps in the report. Aneesh and Sreerupa in the ATREE Eco-Informatics Lab at the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment provided additional GIS support, especially for the section on western Sakaleshpur. Nishanth Srinivasaiah carried out fieldwork and contributed data on the elephant population size and structure in Alur. C.M.

itional GIS support, especially for the section on western Sakaleshpur. Nishanth Srinivasaiah carried out fieldwork and contributed data on the elephant population size and structure in Alur. C.M. Bipin shared data he had compiled for his Masters project on details of village-wise conflicts in Hassan and Chikmagalur forest divisions. Sanjay Gubbi, Mem- ber, Karnataka State Board for Wildlife, made a presentation before the Task Force and shared details of the Board’s assessments pertaining to mini-hydel projects in elephant habitats in Karnataka. The following colleagues provided support and/or professional inputs to members of the task force at various stages: M. Anand Kumar, Anindya Sinha, Divya Mudappa, Mahesh Rangarajan, N. Mohan Raj, Prithiviraj Fernando, Sejal Worah, T. R. S. Raman, T.N.C. Vidya, Thomas Mathew, Surendra Varma, N. Baskaran, K.G. Avinash, Prajna Chowta and Philippe Gautier. We are very grateful to them all.

Finally, we also thank the following institutions that enabled and supported various Task Force members to contribute their time to this effort: Ashoka Trust for Re- search in Ecology and the Environment, Asian Nature Conservation Foundation, Centre for Ecological Sciences (Indian Institute of Science), the Governments of Karnataka, Kera- la, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, Karnataka Legal Services Authority, Nature Conserva- tion Foundation, Project Elephant (Ministry of Environment and Forests), WWF (India and International-AREAS Programme).

il Nadu and West Bengal, Karnataka Legal Services Authority, Nature Conserva- tion Foundation, Project Elephant (Ministry of Environment and Forests), WWF (India and International-AREAS Programme).

9 Terms of Reference of the Karnataka
Elephant Task Force and Measures Recommended

1. To look into the entire gamut of issues related to human-elephant conflict in Karnataka with special reference to Hassan-Kodagu area and make rec- ommendations to bring about a more effective conservation and manage- ment regime for the species and habitat in Karnataka with due focus on participation of local communities.
   Recommendations: The KETF has examined this issue of elephant- human conflict comprehensively, and has made several specific recommendations throughout the report for more effective con- servation and management of the elephant and its habitat in Karnataka. References: Entire report but especially Para 7 on page 17, and in Chapter 3.
2. To study the composition of the elephant population in Kattepura area and its movement pattern. Recommendations: A three-week survey during May 2012 con- ducted in the Alur-Arkalgud-Kattepura area of Hassan and Ko- dagu districts revealed a minimum population of 26 elephants (25 elephant observed included 6 adult males, 8 adult females, 1 sub-adult male, 3 sub-adult females, and 7 juveniles or calves of varying ages) across this region1. The only reliable information on movement patterns comes from the study of a radio-collared bull elephant that has ranged over an area of 30,000 hectares in this region.

ages) across this region1. The only reliable information on movement patterns comes from the study of a radio-collared bull elephant that has ranged over an area of 30,000 hectares in this region. The indications are that this (sub)population of 26 el- ephants also moves across this area. References: Para 8 on page 19, and Chapter 3, Section 3.5.4.on page 73 3. To examine and report on feasibility of providing a proper corridor and/or a habitat, if need be, by acquiring private lands/securing back the unau- thorisedly occupied/encroached lands within and on the periphery of for- est lands. Recommendations: KETF examined in detail the need and feasibil- ity of providing a corridor for elephants though acquisition of private lands in the Hassan district. It concluded that there was no evidence for movement of elephants across the western (Sa- kaleshpur) and eastern (Alur-Arkalgud) parts of the district but rather that the two populations are separate. Thus a corridor would be superfluous. In any case, the extent of land required would run into tens of thousands of hectares of private land that would not be a feasible or a desired exercise for acquisition, es- pecially when conservation gains would be negligible given the small numbers of elephants involved and the enormous costs. References: Para 9 on page 19, and Chapter 3, Section 3.5.3.on page 60 4. To consider the need, expediency or feasibility of translocation of ele- phants or the local inhabitants from the concerned habitats.

Para 9 on page 19, and Chapter 3, Section 3.5.3.on page 60 4. To consider the need, expediency or feasibility of translocation of ele- phants or the local inhabitants from the concerned habitats. Recommendations: After careful deliberations, the majority of KETF members, including the Chairman, came to the conclusion References: Para 8 on page 19,

1Srinivasaiah, NM & Sinha, A. 2012. Elephant Refugees. Unpublished Report, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore.

10 that there is no other option but to capture and remove the (sub)population of about 26 elephants in the Alur-Arkalgud re- gion because of very high levels of conflict with people. The next question was about what to do with the captured elephants. KETF felt that translocating these to another forest area in Kar- nataka came with the distinct risk of transferring the problem of conflict to another area, as also the risk of these elephants return- ing to their original place of capture. The best option therefore was to retain these elephants in captivity for use by the forest department. Four members (B.R. Deepak, N.H. Kamath, V.V. Angadi and C.H. Basappanavar) expressed a dissenting opinion as follows: “We reiterate that in Hassan District Alur & Arkalgud area hu- man beings (sic) should be re-settled in suggested areas.“ and Chapter 3, Section 3.5.4.on page 73; but also see Appendix A on page 125 and Appendix B on page 127. 5.

Alur & Arkalgud area hu- man beings (sic) should be re-settled in suggested areas.“ and Chapter 3, Section 3.5.4.on page 73; but also see Appendix A on page 125 and Appendix B on page 127. 5. To examine and report on the present status/steps taken by Forest Au- thorities in respect of electric fencing, trenching and/or such other corri- dor formation, if any, within and outside the forest in Hassan-Kodagu area and where such steps are ill-advised/or improperly implemented, and thereby have contributed to increase in elephants and human conflict. Recommendations: KETF visited several places in the state where the forest department have erected barriers such as electric fenc- es and elephant-proof trenches. It was entirely satisfied with the recent effort by the department in creating and maintaining bar- riers, through the Eco-development Committees, along the boundary of Bandipur Tiger Reserve. At other places such as Kodagu the work was in progress and it was too early to make a firm judgment. While we have made more detailed recommen- dations in the report, KETF also felt that an audit of the effec- tiveness of functioning of the barriers can only be judged after a period of time, say about 5 years. KETF did not come across any recent instance where the creation of such barriers has contribut- ed to increase in elephant-human conflicts. References: Para 7 on page 17, and Chapter 3, Section 3.5.1 on page 54 as well as Appendix C on page 129. 6.

eation of such barriers has contribut- ed to increase in elephant-human conflicts. References: Para 7 on page 17, and Chapter 3, Section 3.5.1 on page 54 as well as Appendix C on page 129. 6. Examine and report on achievements made/present status of/implementation of short and long-term comprehensive action plan submitted to this Honourable Court. Recommendations: KETF was overall satisfied with several of the measures undertaken recently by the forest department in im- plementing short term and long-term comprehensive action plan. Specific observations on some aspects of this implementa- tion have been given in the report. References: Across entire report, but espe- cially in Appendix C on page 129 7. To consider any other relevant issue. Recommendations: KETF considered the issue of welfare of ele- phants in captivity in the state and has made several recommen- dations for the same. It also addressed several issues relating to administration, tourism and research pertaining to more effec- tive management of the elephant population and its habitat. References: Paras1-6 & 9-16, and Chapters 4, 5 & 6.

issues relating to administration, tourism and research pertaining to more effec- tive management of the elephant population and its habitat. References: Paras1-6 & 9-16, and Chapters 4, 5 & 6.

11 Executive Summary and Key Recommendations Elephants and people have enjoyed a close cultural association in Karnataka since histori- cal times. The presence of the wild animal in this state is mentioned in ancient texts and the captive animal depicted in temple sculpture and art. The challenge in Karnataka is therefore to promote the conservation of wild and captive elephants in the context of this strong cultural ethos.
Karnataka presently harbours about 5,300-6,200 wild elephants over an area of 14,500 sq. km, according to the 2010 census, or about one-fifth of the elephant population of the country. This population is almost entirely concentrated in the southern part of the State, within the Mysore Elephant Reserve spread over 6,463 sq. km. As such this popula- tion fulfils the ecological conditions of a viable population for long-term conservation. There is a small population of elephants in northern Karnataka that has not been studied and its current conservation status is not clear. Smaller populations or solitary bulls, some of which have dispersed from the major habitats, are also found in the state; the popula- tion and habitat viability and the conservation potential of such groups is questionable from an ecological angle.

ch have dispersed from the major habitats, are also found in the state; the popula- tion and habitat viability and the conservation potential of such groups is questionable from an ecological angle. Overall, data from past censuses from 1983 onwards and de- mography (birth rates and death rates) indicate either a stable or a growing population of elephants in the state. Additionally, about 159 elephants are in captive situations in forest camps, zoos, temples, circuses and private ownership in the state. Elephants and their habitats in Karnataka mirror the overall elephant situation in the country, with an entire spectrum from a large viable population ranging over an extensive integral landscape to small, scattered groups in human-dominated areas that are in serious conflict with people. The conservation and management of elephants in Karnataka thus calls for a variety of strategies and responses, depending on the regional situation. Elephant-human conflicts in terms of elephant depredation of cultivated crops, damage to property and loss of human lives have become a major challenge to effective conservation in several regions of the state.

n conflicts in terms of elephant depredation of cultivated crops, damage to property and loss of human lives have become a major challenge to effective conservation in several regions of the state. The ecological basis of such conflicts is rooted in a set of complex factors including loss, fragmentation and degradation of the natural habitat, regional changes in land-use pattern, attraction from the superior palatability and nutritional properties of cultivated plants as compared to the natural forage of the ele- phant, social organization of the elephant with adult males generally becoming more persistent raiders, and adverse climatic events such as droughts causing elephant groups to disperse from their native habitats.

The loss of human lives (averaging 25-30 people annually in recent years) and permanent disability in such conflicts is an especially serious problem for people. In addition, elephants impose significant economic losses upon tens of thousands of people across hundreds of villages across Karnataka. This conflict has triggered deep animosity towards elephants and undermines any lasting conservation effort. Given the wide range of ecological and social settings that underlie conflict, the measures to mitigate elephant-human conflicts must necessarily be diverse. This means that management of elephant-human conflict must include varied options, ranging from

at underlie conflict, the measures to mitigate elephant-human conflicts must necessarily be diverse. This means that management of elephant-human conflict must include varied options, ranging from

12 preventive measures such as the installation of physical barriers like fences and trenches, to post-facto measures such as payment of ex gratia that alleviate loss. Harsh though it may seem, in extreme situations, steps such as the removal of elephants, too, will have to be considered. The two overarching goals of elephant conservation in Karnataka should thus be to ensure the long-term survival of viable populations of elephants living in viable habi- tats, as well as substantially reduce the levels of conflict between elephants and people so as to relieve human suffering and promote greater acceptance and tolerance of elephants. The Karnataka Elephant Task Force has thus taken a zone-based approach, com- bining science and pragmatism, to making recommendations for the management of elephants in the state with a view to conserving the species in the long-term as well as substantially reducing the levels of elephant-human conflicts. It addresses these goals by outlining a framework for protection of elephants and their habitats, mitigation of ele- phant-human conflicts, strengthening of administrative structures and institutions, par- ticipation of local communities in planning and management, ensuring the welfare of captive elephants, and scientific monitoring of elephants and conservation schemes.

uctures and institutions, par- ticipation of local communities in planning and management, ensuring the welfare of captive elephants, and scientific monitoring of elephants and conservation schemes. Three zones are proposed for this purpose, each with a different set of conservation objectives and goals: Elephant Conservation Zone: This would encompass the landscape/s of the larger and more viable population/s of wild elephants, with emphasis on maintaining habitat integ- rity through protection of existing corridors, and mitigation of elephant-human conflicts through containment of elephants within this natural range using barriers such as high- voltage, non-lethal electric fences, elephant-proof trenches and other means. This zone could also include a certain number of human settlements within, depending on how the boundaries of the zone are drawn. The contiguous Bandipur-Nagarahole region is one most obvious example of the Conservation Zone for Karnataka, while a number of other forest areas would also qualify for this zonation. Elephant-human Co-existence Zone: Intermediate zones between the larger, integral habitats and small, fragmented forest patches would be regions for implementing the co- existence model through negotiated sharing of space between elephants and people. While the precise areas of this zone would have to be defined through better field sur- veys, the forests north of the River Cauvery up to Gangavara Reserve Forest in Kodagu district as well as the forests of western Sakaleshpur taluk in Hassan district could be part of this zone.

ur- veys, the forests north of the River Cauvery up to Gangavara Reserve Forest in Kodagu district as well as the forests of western Sakaleshpur taluk in Hassan district could be part of this zone. Future management of this zone, and its reclassification if needed, would depend on the success or otherwise in implementing the co-existence model.
Elephant Removal Zone: These would be regions where elephants would have to be captured from small, isolated patches of forests or human-dominated areas with unac- ceptably high levels of elephant-human conflicts, and/or the viability of the elephant groups in serious doubt. The Alur-Arkalgud taluks and the Savandurga region of Tumkur district clearly fall in this category at present.

13 Against this background, the KETF makes the following key recommendations after holding nine meetings and making three field visits: 1. Establish a Karnataka Elephant Expert Group, within the State Wildlife Board, with a broad mandate to plan, advise, and assist in elephant conservation and management in the state. Suggested broad terms of reference for this Group include the following: 1.1. Composition: This Group must include ecologists/wildlife biologists and social scientists who can bring in sound knowledge of elephant ecology and human so- ciety needed to assist the Chief Wildlife Warden in this complex exercise.
1.2.

logists/wildlife biologists and social scientists who can bring in sound knowledge of elephant ecology and human so- ciety needed to assist the Chief Wildlife Warden in this complex exercise.
1.2. Planning Phase: In the planning phase (say, two years), the Group shall undertake a rigorous effort to compile (and, where needed, generate) data on elephant ecol- ogy and behaviour, land use and land cover, and socioeconomic factors among others, and map them on to forest administrative boundary maps to propose a zonation of elephant’s range across Karnataka into Conservation, Coexistence and Removal Zones. Further, they shall propose a Karnataka Elephant Conservation and Management Plan comprising detailed zone- and site-specific strategies, as well as crosscutting state-wide strategies to enable elephant conservation at the level of Forest Divisions. The Group should develop clear guidelines on the man- agement of each zone (including the corrective action to be taken for measures that are not yielding the expected results), which should become the basis for the management approach to be taken by KFD. In doing this, we urge the Group to also take into account the action plan and recommendations of the first Task Force set up in 1990 by Government of India to prepare the blueprint for Project Elephant at the national level, as well as the Elephant Task Force in its 2010 re- port, Gajah. The Group must also make recommendations on relevant legal and financial mechanisms needed at the State level to implement the Plan.
1.3.

ll as the Elephant Task Force in its 2010 re- port, Gajah. The Group must also make recommendations on relevant legal and financial mechanisms needed at the State level to implement the Plan.
1.3. Implementation Phase: After the planning phase, we recommend that the State Government create the necessary mechanisms and allocate financial resources to support the implementation of this Plan. In the first phase of implementation (say, three years following the planning phase), the Group shall itself provide guidance and, where necessary, also help the process of implementing the Plan. 1.4. Review and Course Corrections: We recommend that detailed annual reviews of implementation are held at the field- and state-level. Further, the Plan itself must be subject to five-yearly technical reviews, and revised as appropriate. The entire planning and implementation must involve public processes, and at the end of the fifth year, be subject to both open expert reviews, as well as public audits of process and outcome.

e. The entire planning and implementation must involve public processes, and at the end of the fifth year, be subject to both open expert reviews, as well as public audits of process and outcome.

14 2. Loss and fragmentation of elephant habitats due to ill-planned commercial infrastructure projects and natural resource extrac- tion In the course of its field visits, the KETF encountered many instances of mini-hydel pro- jects at various stages of creation and operation such as in Sakaleshpur and Malavalli taluks, as well as quarrying operations in and around key elephant habitats. In our con- sidered view, if the location of such projects is ill-advised, and the highest diligence is not exercised in ensuring their compliance with existing laws and regulatory processes, they can pose serious threats to elephants and the integrity of their habitats. In view of this, we recommend that: 2.1. An immediate, time-bound review of clearances granted or pending in areas lying within the distribution range of the elephant in Karnataka be undertaken. Where such clearances are found to be granted prima facie without full compli- ance with the letter and spirit of all applicable laws, statutes and court rulings, they must be withdrawn immediately and such projects cancelled forthwith. The State Government may be directed to file a report on the action taken in this re- gard to the Honourable High Court within a stipulated time. 2.2.

diately and such projects cancelled forthwith. The State Government may be directed to file a report on the action taken in this re- gard to the Honourable High Court within a stipulated time. 2.2. The State Government be directed to prosecute officials who have prima facie misrepresented facts about presence of elephants and other wildlife while rec- ommending project proposals, thereby undermining laws and regulatory pro- cesses established to ensure ecologically-responsible development.
2.3. The Honourable High Court direct the State and Union Governments that, with immediate effect, all proposals for diversion of forest lands (as defined under WP (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 of the Supreme Court) in the elephant’s range in Karna- taka be compulsorily referred to the State’s Chief Wildlife Warden for assessment of potential impact, if any, on elephants and other wildlife. This is currently not the practice. 3. Legal consolidation of elephant habitats 3.1. A process of reconciling land records of the Forest and Revenue Department is long overdue in the State. In the absence of this large and very important meas- ure, it is neither possible to effectively enforce conservation laws, especially against encroachments, for the benefit of elephants or other wildlife, nor is it pos- sible to pursue development programmes for people without impediments at every stage. We therefore recommend that a high-level effort be taken up by the State Government in this direction. 3.2.

s- sible to pursue development programmes for people without impediments at every stage. We therefore recommend that a high-level effort be taken up by the State Government in this direction. 3.2. Meanwhile, where existing parts of the elephant range currently extend outside notified forest areas, we recommend that a process of elevating the legal status of such lands that qualify as ‘deemed forests’ should be taken up in a manner that is consistent with law and reason. Currently available options include the notifica- tion of such areas as Reserved, Protected or Village Forest under the Karnataka

15 Forest Act, 1963. While it may be prudent to first consider Village Forest status, which provides for local management under the regulation of the KFD for areas that may be under fairly intensive use by local communities, areas without such intensive resource use may be notified as Protected or Reserved Forests as ap- propriate to a given situation. 3.3. Further, the KETF has noted that there are continuing leases and other conces- sions on forest land within key elephant habitats, including protected areas such as Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary and BRT Tiger Reserve. For instance, we were made aware of the existence of leases for coffee estates and a tourism facility within the recently-notified BRT Tiger Reserve, tourism leases inside Cauvery WLS, as well as rubber plantations in Kodagu district.

he existence of leases for coffee estates and a tourism facility within the recently-notified BRT Tiger Reserve, tourism leases inside Cauvery WLS, as well as rubber plantations in Kodagu district. We recommend that the Honourable High Court direct the State to prepare, on a time-bound basis, an in- ventory of all such concessions and leases within designated forests in the ele- phant range and initiate necessary process, also in a time-bound manner, to re- store as much of these lands as elephant habitats as necessary and possible.
3.4. In certain key areas within the elephant range in Karnataka (e.g., BRT Tiger Re- serve), we note that adivasis have been conferred individual and community for- est rights (including the right to conserve) under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. The conferring of these rights currently results in a regime of overlapping rights and authority between the adivasis and the Karnataka Forest Department. Currently, there is no clarity on how this overlap and potential conflicts arising from it would be addressed. We are inclined to see this overlap as a potential opportuni- ty for new models of conservation rather than as a threat. Hence, we recommend that, in the present circumstances, the State and the adivasis jointly draw up man- agement plans compatible with the goals of conservation, in consultation with experts, clarifying their respective rights, roles and responsibilities to further con- servation through a democratic process, and to hold each other accountable to that commitment. 4.

ation with experts, clarifying their respective rights, roles and responsibilities to further con- servation through a democratic process, and to hold each other accountable to that commitment. 4. Improving connectivity between elephant habitats 4.1. Currently, a listing of the major elephant corridors of the Mysore Elephant Re- serve of Karnataka, as recorded before 2005, is available in the publication Right of Passage: Elephant Corridors of India. The KETF recommends that the Karnataka Elephant Expert Group, with the help of scientific institutions as necessary, be en- trusted the task of preparing more comprehensive documentation and plans for management of critical corridor lands across the state that may need to be pro- tected, or even purchased, under the due process of law for the purposes of maintaining/enhancing connectivity between key elephant habitats. 4.2. Further, we recommend that such lands that provide connectivity between key habitats be given greater legal cover. Where they lie entirely within Reserved Forests, the State may consider bringing them under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, whereas, if such lands lie outside legally-designated forests, they could

hey lie entirely within Reserved Forests, the State may consider bringing them under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, whereas, if such lands lie outside legally-designated forests, they could

16 be notified as Ecologically Sensitive Areas under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, in accordance with recommendations made in the National Wildlife Action Plan and Strategy 2002-2016, as well as keeping in mind directions from the Gov- ernment of India’s Project Elephant Directorate. 5. Managing land use in non-forest areas adjoining designated forests 5.1. To draw a delicate balance between two key priorities at the State level—of con- serving a wide-ranging and large-bodied animal such as the elephant on the one hand, and meeting the genuine developmental needs of people on the other—the KETF believes that it is necessary to foster ecologically-responsible land-use in privately-owned lands in the immediate neighbourhood of the elephant’s current distribution range. Therefore, we recommend that a socially-inclusive process be initiated at the scale of protected areas/forest divisions at the fringe of the ele- phant’s distribution to evolve land-use practices that best reconcile local land-use goals with long-term ecological concerns. Such reconciliation must also be man- aged under a broad-based institution that represents both ecological and societal concerns. 5.2.

cile local land-use goals with long-term ecological concerns. Such reconciliation must also be man- aged under a broad-based institution that represents both ecological and societal concerns. 5.2. In particular, the KETF was pleased to note a recent exercise to establish and notify one such Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA, under the Environment Protec- tion Act, 1986) around Bandipur Tiger Reserve. This exercise, undertaken with the participation of local elected representatives, forest and revenue officials, and non-governmental organisations, identified a range of land-uses to be regulated by a broad-based ESA Monitoring Committee in the long-term interest of both ecology and society. We therefore recommend that this may be followed as a model for the notification of other ESAs in the State. 5.3. In particular, we also note with concern that despite the existence of clear provi- sions under Section 41(2) of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969, against the grant of land for occupancy by the Deputy Commissioner within 100 metres of reserved and protected forests, there are multiple examples of such grants being made, in many instances for stone quarries, in recent years, especially adjacent to elephant habitats in Kollegal and Ramanagara Forest Divisions. We recommend that the State seriously review and cancel diversions that are not in keeping with the law. 6. Reducing pressures on elephant habitat from large-scale human resource-use 6.1.

sions. We recommend that the State seriously review and cancel diversions that are not in keeping with the law. 6. Reducing pressures on elephant habitat from large-scale human resource-use 6.1. Reducing the footprint of large numbers of rural poor on the elephant’s habitat is a critically important but complex issue. Hitherto, it has been addressed as an is- sue of law enforcement that has simply not worked. On the other hand, newer models of social enterprise built on a better understanding of the socioeconomic realities of rural landscapes have offered greater hope in addressing these com- plex problems. A Non-Government Organization called Namma Sangha outside Bandipur (also supported by the State and Central governments) has, over the

17 last 8 years, helped move over 30,000 villagers off forest-based firewood to cook- ing gas, and greatly reduced their impact on the elephant habitats of Bandipur. We recommend that the State and Central governments create seed funding for such social enterprise approaches founded on solid socio-ecological understand- ing, to reduce the pressures of large-scale human use of elephant habitats by the rural poor. At the same time, the best practises in other efforts by KFD such as social forestry and Joint Forest Management may also be incorporated into these schemes. 7. Mitigating and managing elephant-human conflicts 7.1.

e best practises in other efforts by KFD such as social forestry and Joint Forest Management may also be incorporated into these schemes. 7. Mitigating and managing elephant-human conflicts 7.1. While the recommendations (Paras 2–6, above) may be seen as long-term measures to address some key drivers of elephant-human conflict, more proxi- mate measures of managing conflicts on day-to-day and local scales are also es- sential. In this regard, physical barriers remain one of the main strategies to min- imise elephant-human conflict. We note that a systematic effort to create effective barriers in the past 1-2 years at Bandipur Tiger Reserve have helped demonstra- bly in reducing crop losses. Where unbroken interfaces exist between farming and elephant habitats, as along Bandipur’s northern fringe, we recommend that the KFD be supported more actively in the creation of such barriers. 7.2. However, in situations where the farm-forest fringe is more dissected/broken (e.g., Kodagu and Sakaleshpur), the creation of physical barriers without first understanding patterns of elephant movement may aggravate conflicts as these barriers could impede elephant movement and temporarily restrict them within cultivated areas. We recommend therefore that a more comprehensive site- specific strategy on physical barriers in such complex landscapes be a high- priority focus of the Karnataka Elephant Expert Group. 7.3.

areas. We recommend therefore that a more comprehensive site- specific strategy on physical barriers in such complex landscapes be a high- priority focus of the Karnataka Elephant Expert Group. 7.3. The KETF emphasises that while the State and Centre have, in general, made allocations for the creation of barriers, there has been meagre resources available with the KFD to maintain these barriers. We therefore strongly recommend that additional funds be made available to the KFD under a separate budget head for the regular maintenance of these barriers. Together with this, the KFD may be asked to set up a system of auditing the effectiveness of these maintenance measures. 7.4. We also note that physical barriers installed to reduce conflict are only as effec- tive as the local communities want them to be. Local people, who seek protection for their crops from elephants, themselves routinely undermine these barriers by breaking fences or filling trenches to access forests for firewood and grazing. Therefore, involving local communities in the creation and maintenance of these barriers is often vital in ensuring its effectiveness and durability. We recommend that, wherever possible, the KFD partner with local eco-development committees (EDCs), or even panchayat raj institutions to secure farm landscapes from ele- phants. This would also inject funds into local communities, ensuring greater

er with local eco-development committees (EDCs), or even panchayat raj institutions to secure farm landscapes from ele- phants. This would also inject funds into local communities, ensuring greater

18 sense of ownership of such barriers and participation in their maintenance. Such initiatives to empower local institutions must also go hand-in-hand with re- views/audits that expect a greater accountability from them as well. 7.5. Toll free helpline telephones may be set up at the level of Forest Ranges to pro- vide timely assistance to people who may be injured by elephant attacks, or send the anti-depredation squads to areas where elephants may have entered for dep- redation of crops. 7.6. The payment of ex-gratia relief has been an important post-facto means of alleviat- ing the impact of crop loss to people. Yet, there are many problems with both its premises and practice at multiple levels. While recommending that this approach be carefully and critically reviewed, we do emphasise that, in the interim, the State may be directed to streamline/speed up their disbursal in order to provide timely relief to people. 7.7. The budget head in the office of the Chief Wildlife Warden for payment of ex- gratia should be managed on the lines of the Calamity Relief Fund (as is being managed in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of the district) and availabil- ity of funds in this budget head should be always ensured in order to make quick payments to people for incidents involving injury or loss to human lives in en- counters with elephants. 7.8.

labil- ity of funds in this budget head should be always ensured in order to make quick payments to people for incidents involving injury or loss to human lives in en- counters with elephants. 7.8. We note that certain extreme situations of intense human-elephant conflict may warrant extreme mitigatory measures such as the removal elephants from a given landscape. As with any extreme measure, this option needs to be deployed with great judgment, care and consideration. We leave it to the Karnataka Elephant Expert Group to identify the actual areas to be designated as Removal Zones, but in the interim, we recommend this option only for the elephants of Alur- Arkalgud taluks and the Savandurga region of Tumkur. 7.9. Once elephants are removed from an area, the next question would be whether to retain them in captivity or release them in the natural habitat at another location. This is not easy to answer as it depends on the specific conflict situation and its history. If dispersing elephants have remained for several years outside their na- tive habitat, it may be best to capture and retain these elephants in captivity. KETF also carefully considered the option of translocation of captured elephants to other suitable natural habitat as one option to mitigate conflicts. However, the KETF cautions that this management action does not guarantee that the elephants would successfully settle down in the alternative habitat.

habitat as one option to mitigate conflicts. However, the KETF cautions that this management action does not guarantee that the elephants would successfully settle down in the alternative habitat. The experience with translocating adult male elephants in Karnataka since the mid-1980s has general- ly been a failure, with the elephants usually going back to the original place of capture. Translocation of entire family groups has not been attempted so far in the state or, indeed, in the country, but the limited experience in Sri Lanka sug- gests that such elephants also tend to either go back to the place from where they have been driven or captured, come into conflict with people at the place of re- lease, or even starve to death when confined by barriers such as electric fences

19 along protected area boundaries because of competition from and social exclu- sion by the local elephant groups. KETF does not recommend translocation of el- ephants as an option to address elephant-human conflict in Alur-Arkalgud (see Para 8 below), but underlines that it must remain an option for elephant man- agement in the State. Given the risks involved, if attempted, translocation must be seen as an experimental management tool, and should invariably be accompa- nied by close monitoring through radio- and GPS-collaring of at least one indi- vidual per group to observe its behaviour and movement so that corrective action such as removal into captivity could be taken in the case of continued conflicts.
8.

ollaring of at least one indi- vidual per group to observe its behaviour and movement so that corrective action such as removal into captivity could be taken in the case of continued conflicts.
8. Site Level Recommendation: Elephant-human conflicts in the Alur-Arkalgud region of Hassan District 8.1. The Task Force undertook site visits, studied available information on elephants and people in this region, and duly considered options for in-situ conservation of elephants as well as the scope for more effective mitigation of existing conflict in this region. After deliberating in detail upon this issue, the majority of KETF mem- bers concluded that the conflict in this region is not only of an extreme nature, but also causes chronic suffering and extreme fear psychosis among people and, there- fore, merits the decisive application of extreme measures. Thus, we recommend that: 8.1.1. All elephants in this region, currently estimated to number 25, be removed as soon as possible through capture, taking all due precautions and care to min- imise trauma to animals during capture and subsequent training. 8.1.2. The captured animals be retained in captivity, and not returned to the wild, and recommend steps to strengthen welfare of captive elephants (Chapter 6). 8.1.3. Concurrently with the capture of these elephants, the KFD, in consultation with experts, install suitable barriers along the boundary of a Conservation or Co-existence zone here as the case may be, to ensure that there is no further dispersal of elephants into the Alur-Arkalgud region. 9.

all suitable barriers along the boundary of a Conservation or Co-existence zone here as the case may be, to ensure that there is no further dispersal of elephants into the Alur-Arkalgud region. 9. Site Level Recommendation: Acquisition of private lands in Sa- kaleshpur for the purpose of creating an ‘elephant corridor’ 9.1. Following site visits, consultations with local communities, examination of forest and revenue land records, and all available information on elephants and their habitats, we strongly recommend against spending public money on this pro- posal, as it will have little positive impact on elephant conservation, reduce ele- phant-human conflicts very marginally, benefit a small number of people, and come at a very high cost to the treasury, all for a small population of elephants which is, in any case, disturbed by other factors such as developmental projects.

20 10. Minimising unnatural mortality of elephants 10.1. We note that, over time, the Karnataka Forest Department has worked com- mendably to reduce threats of ivory poaching to the State’s wild elephants. Nev- ertheless, we appreciate that this threat will remain, and perhaps even intensify, as the demand for and value of ivory rise in illegal markets both regionally and internationally. Therefore, we recommend that the highest level of support be continued to anti-poaching vigil, support to frontline forest staff to avert poach- ing, as well as by building greater capacity to swiftly investigate and effectively prosecute offenders. 10.2.

e continued to anti-poaching vigil, support to frontline forest staff to avert poach- ing, as well as by building greater capacity to swiftly investigate and effectively prosecute offenders. 10.2. We also note that, in recent times, elephants continue to perish in incidents of retaliation against crop losses. Most often, such retaliation involves the misuse of electricity from live wires (11 K.V. or 220 volts domestic supply) to electrify the boundaries of farms, and in some cases, also involves the shooting or possible poisoning of elephants that raid crops or perceived as being a threat to human lives. While prosecution may indeed be necessary in such cases, we emphasize that these extreme measures are usually symptomatic of a deep resentment among farmers against the persistent inability of the State to effectively address the debilitating losses they face. Therefore, we emphasize that decisive affirma- tive action to reduce losses to farmers (discussed under Para 7) must go hand-in- hand with such prosecutions. 10.3. During field visits, we also noted many instances of elephant electrocution from low-hanging electricity transmission lines. Electricity companies appear to have repeatedly ignored requests by some coffee plantations and the KFD to raise the minimum height of power transmission pylons in elephant habitats to over 20 feet.

ectricity companies appear to have repeatedly ignored requests by some coffee plantations and the KFD to raise the minimum height of power transmission pylons in elephant habitats to over 20 feet. We recommend that the Honourable High Court issue directions to the de- faulting power companies to rectify this situation, in accordance with the guide- lines on roads and power-lines in natural areas being developed by the National Board for Wildlife, and report on action taken, within a stipulated period of time. 10.4. In all cases of elephant mortality, we recommend that, as is being done now by the National Tiger Conservation Authority, all post mortem examinations be held with external observers, and the KFD create a separate section on its website on which to record and display post-mortem reports. Further, a more scientific pro- cess of carrying out and recording post mortems, such as maintaining photo- graphic evidence of the carcass, GPS location, and collection and preservation of tissue samples for diagnosis of cause of death would enhance the quality of ele- phant mortality records and, ultimately, help in management decisions. 11. Managing habitat in designated forests 11.1. Several activities have been traditionally undertaken for ‘improving’ the quality of habitats for elephants and other wildlife. Examples of this include the seeding of bamboo, removal of invasive plants such as Lantana camara in order to restore natural vegetation, and the creation/maintenance of artificial water sources. As

amples of this include the seeding of bamboo, removal of invasive plants such as Lantana camara in order to restore natural vegetation, and the creation/maintenance of artificial water sources. As

21 some of these measures, especially artificial water provisioning, may have unin- tended long-term consequences for elephants and their habitats (including local overabundance of elephants and increased pressure on natural vegetation), these are best done after careful scientific discussion and endorsement. We recommend that the KFD create such a scientific oversight mechanism under which to pursue such habitat ‘improvement’ activities. 11.2. In the course of the field visits, it emerged that large scale replacement of natural forest with monoculture plantations of teak (Tectona grandis), with virtually bar- ren undergrowth, may also have contributed to the degradation of natural habi- tat and lack of fodder for elephants. Based on past experience of KFD in silvicul- tural treatment of teak plantations to promote the growth of native trees, the Karnataka Elephant Expert Group, in consultation with reputed scientific institu- tions, should advise on restoration of mixed natural forest within teak planta- tions, with a view to genuinely improving the habitat for elephants. 12. Strengthening and streamlining administration for elephant con- servation 12.1.

of mixed natural forest within teak planta- tions, with a view to genuinely improving the habitat for elephants. 12. Strengthening and streamlining administration for elephant con- servation 12.1. While we feel that it would be ideal to manage the key elephant habitats of My- sore Elephant Reserve under a coherent set of management priorities under uni- form legal provisions, we recognise that, in some situations it may not be possible to implement such measures immediately. In the interim, we recommend that such territorial divisions/ranges be administratively attached to wildlife cir- cles/divisions/ranges. Such measures, already implemented in the case of Gund- lupet Range, which was transferred from Kollegal Territorial Division to Bandi- pur Project Tiger Division, would help further a more coherent management of key elephant habitats.
12.2. In the course of consultations with the KFD, we noted many examples of admin- istrative streamlining that would assist in conservation and better management of elephants and their habitats. Taking these into account, we recommend that: 12.2.1. Additional posts of forest watchers and guards are sanctioned for areas of high elephant-human conflict. 12.2.2. The State’s PCCF (Head of Forest Force) is empowered to post Range Forest Officers to vacant positions, especially in Forest Ranges where ele- phant-human conflict is a serious concern. 12.2.3. Incentives are provided to staff who serve 5 years in high conflict Ranges.

st Officers to vacant positions, especially in Forest Ranges where ele- phant-human conflict is a serious concern. 12.2.3. Incentives are provided to staff who serve 5 years in high conflict Ranges. This may be done by strictly implementing an already available govern- ment order that permits such staff to provide options for a posting of their choice upon completion of 5 years.

22 12.2.4. The available government order for making timely payments of salary as well as extra allowances to all staff, including temporary watchers, into bank accounts is fully utilised and implemented in all Ranges. 12.3. We note that many of the steps recommended by the KETF are not possible to implement with existing financial outlays. Hence, we recommend that the Hon- ourable Court direct the State to create the additional financial outlays needed to implement key recommendations. 13. Tourism in elephant areas In the last decade, the State has witnessed a huge expansion of tourism as disposable incomes have increased, especially among its growing middle class. As a result, there has been intensification in recreational tourism to wildlife areas. This growth in tourism has also led to a spiralling market participation in this sector, especially in terms of growth of new hotels, resorts and home-stay facilities in and around natural areas.

. This growth in tourism has also led to a spiralling market participation in this sector, especially in terms of growth of new hotels, resorts and home-stay facilities in and around natural areas. The KETF rec- ognises the value of providing better opportunities for citizens to experience nature and the outdoors, but also strongly underlines the importance of thoughtful and effective regulation of tourism so that its potentially adverse impacts on wildlife and their habitats are minimised.
13.1. We note with concern that in many areas, ill-planned and large tourism infra- structure has the potential to sever habitat connectivity and create serious dis- turbances to elephants and other wildlife. Therefore, we first recommend that measures are initiated to ensure that commercial tourism infrastructure is located only in designated areas. One measure that we strongly recommend here is that the State make the fullest use of land-use regulation provisions of the Environ- ment Protection Act, 1986 by notification of Ecologically Sensitive Areas (also see Para 4.2) around key wildlife habitats so that threats posed by ill-planned tour- ism infrastructure are minimised. 13.2. We also recognise that the activity of tourism within wildlife areas can itself grow to an extent where it may cause direct disturbance to wildlife, as well as pose challenges to management. By and large, KFD has regulated tourism in most of its protected areas very sensibly.

grow to an extent where it may cause direct disturbance to wildlife, as well as pose challenges to management. By and large, KFD has regulated tourism in most of its protected areas very sensibly. However, problems still remain in certain areas such as in Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary and adjoining areas of Mandya and Kolle- gal Forest Divisions where unregulated influx of tourists along certain sections of the road skirting River Cauvery causes direct disturbance to elephants, impedes their access to the river, and creates a severe problem of solid-waste disposal, es- pecially in places like Muthathi. In such situations, we recommend the creation of designated areas outside the sanctuary, especially along the banks of the Cau- very, where tourists are provided required facilities and better nature interpreta- tion, and alongside, there is a stricter regulation of tourist entry into areas located within key wildlife habitats. 13.3. In addition, we also recommend that measures to regulate tourism are in conso- nance with evolving Central Government policy on ecotourism in wildlife areas,

d within key wildlife habitats. 13.3. In addition, we also recommend that measures to regulate tourism are in conso- nance with evolving Central Government policy on ecotourism in wildlife areas,

23 especially in terms of ensuring that the benefits of tourism are more equitably shared with marginal local stakeholders such that this important activity is car- ried out with greater ecological and social responsibility. 14. Inter-state cooperation and coordination 14.1. We note that key elephant habitats of the State currently abut similar, high-value elephant habitats of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Greater coordination between the states can go a long way in controlling poaching, managing conflict, as well as in the maintenance/enhancement of habitat connectivity. We suggest that a coordi- nating mechanism be set up to ensure that cohesive landscape-level management plans are developed and effective inter-state coordination in elephant manage- ment and conservation achieved at the scale of each Project Elephant Landscape as recommended by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. 15. Research and monitoring for elephant conservation and manage- ment 15.1. We note that a solid understanding of elephant ecology and behaviour is the bedrock of knowledge-based management and conservation of this species. We therefore recommend that the State take active measures to foster research about this species, and ensure that its management utilises the highest standards of sci- ence.

vation of this species. We therefore recommend that the State take active measures to foster research about this species, and ensure that its management utilises the highest standards of sci- ence. We also suggest the following priority areas of research: elephant popula- tion estimation, monitoring elephant demography, regular monitoring of the sta- tus of elephant habitats, social behaviour and ranging patterns, foraging ecology and impacts of elephants on habitats, understanding elephant-human conflicts and evaluating mitigation measures, studying the impact of management prac- tices on the species, as well as long-term research into key populations. 15.2. Systematic record keeping for efficient information retrieval is a key pre-requisite to making informed management decisions. Current systems of recording infor- mation on a range of issues, including human-elephant conflicts, creation and maintenance of barriers, proposals for habitat diversion in key elephant habitats are highly fragmented. We therefore strongly recommend that the KFD develop capacity, in partnership with non-governmental agencies if needed, to centralise the recording of such information that will help management at both the state- and the field-level. 16. Welfare and management of captive elephants 16.1. Given the inevitability of some wild elephants coming into captivity because of serious conflicts with people, it is essential that we pay adequate attention to the use and welfare of elephants in captivity.

inevitability of some wild elephants coming into captivity because of serious conflicts with people, it is essential that we pay adequate attention to the use and welfare of elephants in captivity. This would require a suite of measures including strengthening the captive elephant establishment, maintenance of ser- vice registers for individual elephants, building a cadre of veterinarians with ex-

24 pertise in captive elephant biology and treatment of ailments and diseases, pre- serving some of the traditional skills in capture of elephants, and introducing the art of humane training and management. 16.2. Elephants in captivity should undergo regular health screening, not only for body condition, parasites and general diseases, but in particular, for tuberculosis. 16.3. The welfare of captive elephants is closely tied to the health and well-being of elephant mahouts and kavadis whose dignity and service conditions must be en- sured. Mahouts and kavadis should also be provided regular health screening, es- pecially for tuberculosis. 16.4. The management of forest camp elephants is presently regulated under Rules 88- 111 of Chapter II of the Karnataka Forest Code, 1976. Based on the present re- quirement of captive elephant management, the provisions of the above code have to be revised by a team of experts on captive elephants. Indeed, there is ur- gent need for rules to be drafted for the maintenance of all captive elephants, in- cluding those in temples, zoos, circuses and private ownership, and their compli- ance monitored. 16.5.

ere is ur- gent need for rules to be drafted for the maintenance of all captive elephants, in- cluding those in temples, zoos, circuses and private ownership, and their compli- ance monitored. 16.5. Captive elephants should be used only by the department for purposes such as patrolling forests, tourist rides, biological research, elephant-human conflict management or exchanged with other state forest departments for similar use. Newly captured elephants should not be given to temples, circuses or other commercial use. 16.6. The welfare of captive elephants in the state should be regularly monitored by the Chief Wildlife Warden with the assistance of a group of experts and officials specifically constituted for this purpose.
16.7. Micro-chipping of all captive elephants should be made mandatory in order to ensure that illegal trade in such captive animals is curtailed. 16.8. KETF notes that the Dasara festival involving the display of elephants at Mysore is a grand expression of Karnataka’s rich cultural heritage that merits preserva- tion. Nevertheless, as a demonstration of the State’s commitment to addressing issues in the conservation of its wild elephants, as well as the welfare of its cap- tive elephants, we suggest that the heavy 750 kg golden howdah carried by the lead elephant in the Mysore Dasara procession be replaced with a much lighter replica or carried in a chariot drawn by the elephant.

s, we suggest that the heavy 750 kg golden howdah carried by the lead elephant in the Mysore Dasara procession be replaced with a much lighter replica or carried in a chariot drawn by the elephant. Such a symbolic gesture, especially as something that crowns a series of measures to further elephant- human coexistence in Karnataka, could make the state a national and interna- tional leader in elephant conservation.

25

Chapter 1
Setting the context for the Karnataka Elephant Task Force’s work 1.1 Background Karnataka possibly has the distinction of harbouring the largest population of the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) in India. About one-fifth of the country’s estimated popula- tion of 28,000 wild elephants is found in Karnataka2, mainly in protected and reserve forests in the southern part of the state. As such the elephant population of Karnataka is sufficiently large and does not warrant serious concern about the future prospects for its survival. The cultural association of the elephant with people is also ancient in the state, as seen from its prolific depiction in temple art from the Hoysala dynasty of the 12th and 13thcentury, through the ruins of the 14-16th century Vijayanagara kingdom at Hampi and the murals of the 18th century Dariya Daulat, to the modern-day Dasara festival at Mysore Palace. The elephant is thus an iconic species for the conservation of biological diversity and the cultural heritage of the state.

Nevertheless, Karnataka also typifies many of the problems that the elephant faces across the country.

pecies for the conservation of biological diversity and the cultural heritage of the state.

Nevertheless, Karnataka also typifies many of the problems that the elephant faces across the country. Although most of the elephants in the state are presently dis- tributed across a single, contiguous landscape in the south and southwest (named as the Mysore Elephant Reserve), along with adjoining elephant habitats in the states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala, there are still threats to the integrity of this landscape through frag- mentation. There are at least two completely isolated populations in the state, a small population in north-western Karnataka and a medium-sized one in the Malenad plateau. We lack clarity on the status and viability of a number of small, scattered elephant groups ranging over the Western Ghats. Karnataka also faces a serious problem of elephant- human conflicts, not only in the form of chronic crop raiding and occasional human deaths along the forest-agriculture interface of the major elephant habitats, but also a more severe manifestation of such conflict from dispersing groups of elephants or soli- tary bulls that range over a predominantly human-use landscape such as the Alur/Arkalgud taluks in Hassan district or the Savandurga region of Tumkur district. Some of these problems of habitat fragmentation and elephant-human conflicts stem from the historical patterns of land-use in the state, exacerbated in recent times by devel- opmental pressures of a rapidly growing economy.

habitat fragmentation and elephant-human conflicts stem from the historical patterns of land-use in the state, exacerbated in recent times by devel- opmental pressures of a rapidly growing economy.

The Government of India initiated Project Elephant during 1992-93 with these broad primary objectives:

1. Conserving and protecting the viable populations of wild elephants and ensuring the quality and integrity of the larger landscapes across the country of which they are a part.
2. Mitigating elephant-human conflicts through a number of measures including com- pensatory payments for crop losses, ex gratia payments for loss of human lives, barri-

2Project Elephant Directorate, Government of India.

26 ers to prevent elephants from entering agricultural land, as well as capture and trans- location of elephants where necessary and feasible. 3. Promoting ecologically sustainable development among local communities depend- ent upon forest resources to reduce pressures on the natural habitat.
4. Controlling the illegal killing of elephant especially the poaching of male elephants for ivory (that had become a scourge in southern India during the 1980s).
5. Ensuring the welfare of elephants in captivity.

These strategic objectives are still very much valid in the present-day context of elephant conservation, and we must keep this framework in mind when planning for conservation and management of elephants in Karnataka.

tives are still very much valid in the present-day context of elephant conservation, and we must keep this framework in mind when planning for conservation and management of elephants in Karnataka. Presently, the management of elephants in the highly fragmented areas, isolated forest patches, or the human-dominated landscapes in the country consumes a dispropor- tionate amount of financial and human resources, often at great cost to human life, prop- erty and agriculture, and with questionable returns in terms of conservation gains. As compared to its neighbouring elephant-bearing states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala, whose elephant populations are largely concentrated within or confined to well-defined tracts of forests, Karnataka faces the problem of a small fraction of its elephant population being highly scattered over expansive forested and non-forested landscapes. Consequently, Karnataka faces a more serious problem of elephant-human conflicts, relatively speaking, and thus greater challenges in formulating and executing an appropriate conservation paradigm. The conservation of elephants must be based on these two overarching goals:

1. Ensure the long-term survival of viable (demographically and genetically) popula- tions of elephants through land-use planning, regulation and consolidation in the larger natural landscapes of the state on the basis of sound scientific theory and social principles.

) popula- tions of elephants through land-use planning, regulation and consolidation in the larger natural landscapes of the state on the basis of sound scientific theory and social principles. 2. Substantially reduce the levels of elephant-human conflicts to relieve human suffering from loss of crops, property and life, in a manner that would promote greater toler- ance and acceptance of elephants in the larger landscape by local communities, pro- tect their livelihoods, and ensure their effective participation in conservation.

If the above two goals are kept in mind, conservation could become a win-win strategy—for elephants that would now be able to move within secure habitats and have lower chances of being injured or killed in conflicts with people, and for people whose lives and livelihoods would be more secure against the depredations of elephants. 1.2 Our approach The Karnataka Elephant Task Force has thus taken a zone-based approach to make rec- ommendations for the management of elephants in the state through conservation of habitat, protection of elephants, mitigation of conflict, strengthening of administrative structures and institutions, participation of local communities in this broader scheme, and scientific monitoring. It recognizes that conservation of elephants comes at a cost,

g of administrative structures and institutions, participation of local communities in this broader scheme, and scientific monitoring. It recognizes that conservation of elephants comes at a cost,

27 often a great one borne largely by marginalized communities of farmers and other rural people. This is neither a sustainable model of conservation nor desirable from the view- point of equity and social justice. KETF thus advocates a scientifically sound yet pragmat- ic scheme for the long-term conservation of elephants in the state. This approach, briefly outlined below, is elaborated in the subsequent chapter of this report.

1. Elephant Conservation Zone: This would encompass the larger and more-intact forested habitats that hold a large elephant population comprising a substantial pro- portion of the elephant population of the state. The emphasis within this zone would be maintaining habitat integrity at the landscape scale through protecting and strengthening corridors, preventing elephants from moving into agricultural land and settlements both along the periphery and within enclaves, and affording maximum protection to elephants against illegal killing.
2. Elephant-human Coexistence Zone: Elephant populations numbering in the several tens or perhaps over a hundred, either isolated or connected to the major conserva- tion zone, but ranging over a restricted or a fragmented habitat in which conflicts are high, would qualify for experimenting with the a model of coexistence with people.

to the major conserva- tion zone, but ranging over a restricted or a fragmented habitat in which conflicts are high, would qualify for experimenting with the a model of coexistence with people. 3. Elephant Removal Zone: The elephant-removal zone would include places where small or isolated groups of elephants, with questionable viability, or solitary bulls range over a predominantly human-settled landscape, and the social and economic costs to maintaining the elephants here are unacceptably high.

In the course of implementing such a conservation plan, it would be inevitable that some elephants would come into captivity without compromising the continued survival and viability of the wild populations of the state. KETF thus also addresses basic issues relating to the welfare and use of captive elephants. It also recommends the setting up of a Karnataka Elephant Expert Group, within the State Board for Wildlife, to assist the Chief Wildlife Warden in detailed technical planning and implementation of elephant conservation in the state.

Photos (clockwise): K. Murthy, K. Murthy, MD Madhusudan & MD Madhusudan Few species integrate ecological function and c is believed to hold India’s largest populations o conflicts with farmers over crops and by prote the opportunity to lead India’s efforts in conse cultural symbolism as impressively as the Asian elephant does. Karnataka of this iconic species. By securing the elephant’s habitats, by reducing its ecting the species against poaching and retaliatory killing, Karnataka has erving this stately animal.

does. Karnataka of this iconic species. By securing the elephant’s habitats, by reducing its ecting the species against poaching and retaliatory killing, Karnataka has erving this stately animal.

29 Chapter 2
Elephant distribution, abundance and ecological considerations 2.1 Distribution and abundance of elephants in Karnataka The elephant is distributed over the Eastern and the Western Ghats with the southern region of the state of Karnataka holding the maximum numbers at relatively high densi- ty. Presently, elephants are found in at least three disjunct populations, a small one (about 50+) in the north of the state distributed thinly in the Belgaum and Uttara Kanna- da districts and other forests adjoining Goa and Maharashtra, a population of about 300 elephants in the Malenad plateau (primarily Bhadra WLS and adjoining areas) in Shimo- ga district, and a larger one (numbering several thousand) across Chikmagalur–Kodagu– Mysore plateaus eastward through the Eastern Ghats up to Bannerghatta National Park near Bengaluru city.

Wild elephants are found in 24 forest divisions of Karnataka and the total area of distribution is approximately 14,500 km2, though the regular presence of elephants covers only about 10,000 km2 (this excludes northern Karnataka where a small elephant popula- tion ranges over a large, diffuse area). Seven forest divisions shown as non-distribution area of elephants –Karwar, Honnavar, Sirsi, Haveri, Sagar, Kundapur, and Shimoga –are occasionally used by elephants, mainly solitary bulls.

area). Seven forest divisions shown as non-distribution area of elephants –Karwar, Honnavar, Sirsi, Haveri, Sagar, Kundapur, and Shimoga –are occasionally used by elephants, mainly solitary bulls. Karnataka state has presently one notified Project Elephant Reserve, spread over 6463 km2, termed as Mysore Elephant Reserve (MER) that comprises 15 Forest Divisions from Bhadra in the Malenad plateau to Bandipur in the south, and from Chamarajanagar to Bannerghatta along the Eastern Ghats. The MER holds over 98% of the wild elephant population of the state. There are four elephant-bearing forest divisions on the south of Bhadra (Koppa, Kudremukha, Chikmagalur and Mangalore) along the Western Ghats that are not part of the MER.

The population estimate of elephants based on sample block count (with about 50% sampling of the 10,000 km2 of elephant habitat in the state) during 15-17 May 2010 gave an average population of 5740 elephants (range = 5301–6179) across the 19 forest divisions (Figure 1 & Table 1). To this may be added about 50+ elephants for northern Karnataka that was not covered by the enumeration. Similarly, mean population size arrived at for the state by summing up the estimates of elephant numbers for individual forest divisions showed a comparable figure of 5616 elephants. Population estimate by line transect dung count gave an average elephant density of 0.7 elephant/km2 that trans- lates to a mean population of 6299 elephants.

a comparable figure of 5616 elephants. Population estimate by line transect dung count gave an average elephant density of 0.7 elephant/km2 that trans- lates to a mean population of 6299 elephants. As opposed to the direct block count that estimates the number of elephants on a given day, the indirect dung count method pro- vides an average estimate of elephant density and numbers over a 3-4 month period prior to the date of sampling.

The elephant populations of the Mysore Elephant Reserve of Karnataka form part of a larger elephant population that ranges into the adjoining states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Therefore, difference in the total number of elephants between years could be a function of climate-related spatiotemporal variation in distribution pattern or movement of elephants within the population’s range (landscape) that spreads into the adjoining states.

30

Figure 1: Map showing elephant density by (a) block count and (b) dung count method in 19 forest divisions of the Mysore Elephant Reserve during 2010 synchronized elephant census (from Baskaran and Sukumar 2010, ANCF Report to Karnataka Forest Department) (a)$ (b)$

count method in 19 forest divisions of the Mysore Elephant Reserve during 2010 synchronized elephant census (from Baskaran and Sukumar 2010, ANCF Report to Karnataka Forest Department) (a)$ (b)$

31

It is worth giving a brief consideration to the dynamics of the overall elephant population in the state. A crude birth rate of 0.3 calves/adult female/year (based on a sample of 500 calves and 1655 adult females) was recorded during the 2010 elephant census; such a high rate would not be sustained from one year to another. An average birth rate of 0.2 calves/adult female/year (inter-calving interval of 5 years) is a more reasonable longer term estimate based on research studies. Annual mortality (crude estimate) based on 126 mean annual elephant deaths (from 2009–2011) out of 5616 ele- phants estimated in 2010 works out to 2.2%, with the male segment experiencing higher mortality (2.9%) compared to the female segment (1.8%).

Data available on past censuses (Table 2) have to be interpreted with caution because of methodological differences between 1983-1993 (“total counts”) and 2002-2010 (“sample block counts”) censuses as well as seasonal movement of elephants across ad- joining states during different years. Overall, the available population figures, observed birth rates and mortality rates indicate that the elephant population of Karnataka is un- likely to be decreasing, and most likely to be either stable or growing.

ilable population figures, observed birth rates and mortality rates indicate that the elephant population of Karnataka is un- likely to be decreasing, and most likely to be either stable or growing. Thus, there needs Table 1: Elephant population estimated by sample block count method in different forest divisions of Karnataka during Synchronized Elephant Census 2010 Forest division Elephant habitat (km2) Density (/km2) Mean
95% Lower Confidence Limit 95% Upper Confidence Limit

1. Bandipur TR 906 2.4 2,130 1,727 2,534
2. Bannerghatta NP 104 0.7 76 36 117
3. Bhadra WLS 492 0.7 325 198 497
4. Cauvery WLS 519 1.0 535 361 704
5. Chamarajanagar WL (BRT) 540 0.8 443 320 563
6. Chikmagalur 139 0.1 11 5 17
7. Hassan 250 0.3 67 27 107
8. Hunsur 71 0.4 31 13 50
9. Hunsur WL (Nagarahole) 643 1.0 617 443 792
10. Kollegal 1,222 0.5 589 457 720
11. Koppa 1151 0.0 0 0 0
12. Kudremukha NP 600 0.0 0 0 0
13. Madikeri* 892 0.1 50 36 64
14. Madikeri WL 379 0.5 180 114 245
15. Mandya 97 0.2 15 3 26
16. Mangalore
    1,128 0.1 56 42 69
17. Mysore 177 0.4 66 21 110
18. Ramanagara 353 0.7 251 150 351

64 14. Madikeri WL 379 0.5 180 114 245 15. Mandya 97 0.2 15 3 26 16. Mangalore
1,128 0.1 56 42 69 17. Mysore 177 0.4 66 21 110 18. Ramanagara 353 0.7 251 150 351 19. Virajpet 337 0.5 175 88 260 Overall (Sum of divisions) 10,001

5,616 4,041 7,226 Overall (Analysis of pooled data) 10,001 0.6 5,740 5,301 6,179

• Area sampled by sample block count method exceeds the elephant habitat available within the division (as private forest under coffee estates were sampled), thus the total area of sampling by block count method is taken as elephant habitat.

32 to be no cause for concern on account of a declining wild elephant population, but rather the need to plan for appropriate management of dispersing elephant groups in the state.
2.2 Biology of the Asian elephant The Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) is one of three surviving species of the Family Elephantidae of the Order Proboscidea. This species is believed to have evolved in the Indian subcontinent about 250,000 years ago. Elephants are highly social animals with a matriarchal family structure comprising two or more generations of female elephants and sub-adult males. The male however disperses from the family and establishes its own home range at a location different from that of its natal family in order to avoid inbreed- ing; genetic studies also show that related male elephants often disperse together3.

d establishes its own home range at a location different from that of its natal family in order to avoid inbreed- ing; genetic studies also show that related male elephants often disperse together3. This animal possesses higher levels of intelligence and cognitive abilities, and thus is capable of exhibiting novel behavioural responses to a changing environment.

This large-bodied animal consumes about 8-10% of its body weight each day as fresh fodder, from a wide variety of plants and plant parts. Studies show that while grasses may constitute more than 50% of plant material consumed annually, about 70% of the protein is obtained from browse plants (leaves, bark, fruits, bamboos, etc.) in dry forests in southern India4; thus forests are important for the survival of Asian elephants. Elephants also need water not only for drinking but also bathing and wallowing, though may not necessarily need water on a daily basis. In order to meet these basic require- ments, elephant move over a larger area annually. Seasonal shifts in ranging patterns also help the elephant to optimize the quality of the forage it consumes. The annual home range size of an elephant bull or a family group in India may be typically anywhere between 300 km2 and 1000 km2 as shown in several studies that have used radio- and GPS-telemetry to track their movement in detail5,6. Elephant families typically show

3Vidya, T.N.C. and Sukumar, R. 2005. Social organization of the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) inferred from microsatellite DNA.

ically show

3Vidya, T.N.C. and Sukumar, R. 2005. Social organization of the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) inferred from microsatellite DNA. Journal of Ethology 23: 2-5-210. 4Sukumar, R. and Ramesh, R. 1992. Stable carbon isotope ratios in Asian elephant collagen: implications for dietary studies. Oecologia 91: 536-539. 5Baskaran, N., Balasubramanian, M., Swaminathan, S. and Desai, A.A. 1995. Home range of elephants in Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve. In: JC Daniel and HS Datye (eds.) A Week with Elephants. Oxford University Press, New Delhi. Table 2: Elephant population of Karnataka recorded in various censuses using the block count method during 1983-2010. Total counts were done during 1983-1993 while sample counts were done subsequently. The 95% confidence intervals are given in brackets for the 2007 and 2010 censuses Year of Estimation Estimated Elephant Population 1983 3,579 1989 4,420 1993 5,980 2002 5,848 2005 4,347 2007 4,205 (3,800 – 4,610)
2010 5,790 (5,350 – 6,230)

2007 and 2010 censuses Year of Estimation Estimated Elephant Population 1983 3,579 1989 4,420 1993 5,980 2002 5,848 2005 4,347 2007 4,205 (3,800 – 4,610)
2010 5,790 (5,350 – 6,230)

33 fidelity to their home ranges in the short- to medium-term7, though changes or extension of such home ranges are also known to occur.

The elephant’s penchant for feeding on cultivated crops brings it into direct con- flict with people. The phenomenon of crop raiding by elephants has been extensively studied in Asia8,9,10,11,12and Africa13,14 in recent decades. The most obvious patterns and reasons of crop raiding supported by the scientific studies are the following: a) The rapid loss of natural habitat through conversion to agriculture would result in escalated conflict as elephants continue to treat the converted land as part of their traditional home range. Habitat loss directly impacts only those clans or males within whose home ranges the changes have taken place. There can also be indirect impacts on unaffected clans due to population compression resulting in increased competition and habitat degradation due to increased elephant population in some cases b) The fragmentation of habitat increase the chances of this long-ranging species to make contact with cultivated land and indulge in crop raiding. Most studies show that hab- itat fragmentation is the most consistent proximate driver of chronic conflict.

his long-ranging species to make contact with cultivated land and indulge in crop raiding. Most studies show that hab- itat fragmentation is the most consistent proximate driver of chronic conflict. c) The high concentration, palatability and nutritive content of cultivated plants are irresistible attractions to herbivores such as the elephant that has enormous forage re- quirements. Thus, some elephants having tasted crops would continue to prefer this source of food, irrespective of the availability of natural forage in their habitat. d) As a consequence of elephant social structure, sub-adult and adult male elephants typically have a higher propensity as compared to female-led groups to raid crops and are usually the first to move out from their native range into isolated patches of forest specifically for the purposes of raiding. e) Elephants may disperse from their native range as a consequence of local habitat pressures, significant reduction in forage through proliferation of unpalatable weeds or large-scale fire, overabundance in relation to carrying capacity, or adverse climatic

6Sukumar, R. 2003. The Living Elephants: Evolutionary Ecology, Behavior and Conservation. Oxford University Press, New York. 7Baskaran, N., Balasubramanian, M., Swaminathan, S. and Desai, A.A. 1995.Home range of elephants in Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve. In: JC Daniel and HS Datye (eds.) A Week with Elephants.

ss, New York. 7Baskaran, N., Balasubramanian, M., Swaminathan, S. and Desai, A.A. 1995.Home range of elephants in Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve. In: JC Daniel and HS Datye (eds.) A Week with Elephants. Oxford University Press, New Delhi. 8Sukumar, R and Gadgil, M. 1988. Male-female differences in foraging on crops by Asian elephants. Animal Behaviour 36:1233-1235. 9Sukumar, R. 1989.The Asian Elephant: Ecology and Management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. 10Balasubramanian, M., Baskaran, N., Swaminathan, S., and Desai, A.A., 1995.Crop raiding by Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) in the Nilgiri Reserve, South India. In: JC Daniel and HS Datye (eds.) A Week with Ele- phants. Oxford University Press, New Delhi. 11Williams, A.C., Johnsingh, A.J.T., and Krausman, P.R., 2001. Elephant-human conflicts in Rajaji National Park, north-western India. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29, 1097–1104. 12Gubbi, S., 2012. Patterns and correlates of human–elephant conflict around a south Indian reserve. Biological Conservation 148, 88–95. 13Hoare, R.E., 1999. Determinants of human-elephant conflict in a land-use mosaic. Journal of Applied Ecology 36, 689–700. 14 Barnes, R.F.W., 1996. The conflict between humans and elephants in the central African forests. Mammal Review 26, 67–80.

conflict in a land-use mosaic. Journal of Applied Ecology 36, 689–700. 14 Barnes, R.F.W., 1996. The conflict between humans and elephants in the central African forests. Mammal Review 26, 67–80.

34 events such as a serious drought. Female-led clans have defined space use within the natural landscape. It is therefore very difficult for family groups to adjust to habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation they suffer. Adverse habitat factors may cause them to disperse in an attempt to find better habitat outside their present range.
f) Due to strong inter-clan hierarchies they are unable to move into good areas within the existing elephant range and, hence, tend to disperse into unoccupied areas which are generally human use areas.
A proper understanding and appreciation of one or more of these reasons in a given context is important in order to take the most appropriate management steps to mitigate conflict. As elephant-human conflict has become central to various considerations in the conservation of elephants in the country and Karnataka in particular, we provide a de- tailed write-up on this aspect.

15Richter, G. 1870. Gazetter of Coorg. 16Sukumar, R. 2011.The Story of Asia’s Elephants. The Marg Foundation, Mumbai. BOX: Understanding and managing elephant human conflict Past management of elephant-human conflict Elephant-human conflict is not new to Karnataka, having been recorded as a serious problem nearly two hundred years ago in Kodagu district.

uman conflict Past management of elephant-human conflict Elephant-human conflict is not new to Karnataka, having been recorded as a serious problem nearly two hundred years ago in Kodagu district. “In 1822, the ryots complained to the then Rajah about the great destruction of their crop fields and houses caused by numerous herds of elephants. The Rajah took a decision to resolve this problem by de- stroying elephants. There were 233 elephants killed with his own hand within 38 days whereas his soldiers caught 181 alive”15. Apart from elimination of elephants, captures of elephants for captive use (for work and war), too, was a major source of minimizing conflict and the impact of captures on wild elephant populations can be very significant. In the past tens of thousands of elephants have been caught for use in work, pageantry and war16. By and large, elephants were largely eliminated, by killing or by bringing into captivity whenever they came into conflict with people especially when new areas were cleared for human use. The fact that elephants were protected species both in southern India and Sri Lanka is the 1800s is also a pointer to the excessive removal of elephants for captive use or their elimination through killing, although the law was introduced by the British in order to ensure a steady supply of elephants for their needs such as logging. Current management of elephant-human conflict In the post-independence period, legal protection (e.g.

y the British in order to ensure a steady supply of elephants for their needs such as logging. Current management of elephant-human conflict In the post-independence period, legal protection (e.g. Wildlife Protection Act, 1972) ensured that elephants and their conflicts with people could not be managed by eliminat- ing elephants. The absence of similar protection to a part of the elephants’ habitat, how- ever, ensured that habitat continued to deteriorate due to loss, fragmentation and degra- dation, while elephant populations continued to grow due to protection. This approach of completely protecting the elephant but not its habitat resulted in paving the way for

35 escalated conflict and was the basis for management taking an approach that focuses only on symptomatic treatment of elephant-human conflict that focuses on alleviating the burden on people through various means such as use of barriers, rather than addressing the causative factors relating to habitat change.
However, we have to be realistic as human requirements for space also need to be taken into account and we cannot completely undo habitat loss that has occurred in the past. Reversal of past changes can be achieved in a few cases where it is crucial; but this can be done only on smaller scales (i.e. restoration of critical corridors or habitat in some areas). But by and large, past changes in land use cannot be undone on a large scale. So we need to focus on managing elephant conservation within elephant habitat where conservation is practical and secures viable populations.

changes in land use cannot be undone on a large scale. So we need to focus on managing elephant conservation within elephant habitat where conservation is practical and secures viable populations. Types of crop raiding based on elephant behaviour and ranging At the basic level there are two main types of crop raiding although there could be sever- al variations of these basic causes.
Opportunistic crop raiding Given the opportunity (unprotected crops or poorly protected crops), elephants will raid crops when they encounter them as they see cultivated crops as a concentrated source of food. However, some opportunistic raiders can become habitual crop raiders if allowed constant and easy access to crops. Habitual crop raiders need to be viewed and addressed separately. They are animals which have lost most or a significant part of their fear for humans and their normal crop protection methods. They are also animals that have learned to negotiate barriers. They also recognize that crops are a good source of nutri- tion and are available in bulk for easy access. As such these elephants are as persistent and problematic as obligatory crop raiders. Obligatory crop raiding When habitat within the elephant’s home range has been severely reduced or degraded (due to loss, fragmentation and degradation) then the affected elephants will raid crops out of necessity as they do not have enough food in their home range. The severity of crop raiding will depend on the extent of habitat that has been lost or degraded.

ted elephants will raid crops out of necessity as they do not have enough food in their home range. The severity of crop raiding will depend on the extent of habitat that has been lost or degraded.
Elephant-human conflict mitigation measures Basically we need to address two aspects of elephant-human conflicts if we want to min- imise the problem on a lasting basis. First, we have to address the causative factors for conflicts. Ideally we should stop such causes and in a practical manner try to reverse the causes in areas considered critical. In areas where it is not possible to stop some activity an attempt should be made to moderate it so as to minimize the problem. This would have two direct and immediate impacts on conflict. It would stop the creation of new conflict situations or the escalation of existing situations, and it would help reduce con- flicts by reversing some of the adverse situations that are a consequence of past actions. While implementing this agenda of targeting the causative factors we must also take into account that we will continue to live in conflict with elephants as past and current land use changes cannot be reversed entirely (only marginal changes are possible). As such

must also take into account that we will continue to live in conflict with elephants as past and current land use changes cannot be reversed entirely (only marginal changes are possible). As such

36 there is then a need to address these long-term problems in a systematic and sustained manner. Conflict mitigation has to be a 3-step process as indicated below

1. Stopping the causative factors.
2. Reversing some of past land use changes that are the cause for severe conflict today.
3. Containing whatever residual conflict that remains after the first two steps. This approach has to be pragmatic if it is to succeed, at the onset it will be clear that steps one and three will be the primary targets for major management action. These two steps will show fast results and need to be implemented simultaneously. Step two will take time to show results, it also requires proper assessment of target areas, it will require fairly large resource inputs, it may also require some out of the box thinking and a flexi- ble and pragmatic approach in terms of policy by the government. Reversing some of the past causes for elephant-human conflicts As already mentioned there is a need to be very pragmatic about this so that tangible results can be obtained in the field. Habitat loss: Large scale restoration of habitat is socially and economically not feasible and, therefore, only critical and extremely essential areas should be targeted for restora- tion. For this there is need for clear assessments to justify reasons for purchasing such areas. a.

ible and, therefore, only critical and extremely essential areas should be targeted for restora- tion. For this there is need for clear assessments to justify reasons for purchasing such areas. a. One important means of restoring habitat is through recovery of encroached forest land within elephant habitat. Special efforts should also be made to identify such en- croached lands that adjoin intact elephant habitats, as well as all other misuses of Re- serve Forest land in order to take appropriate action. b. Critical areas, for example swamps (hadlus or vayals) in forested areas with few households cultivating them can be prioritised for resettlement if considered neces- sary and important. c. There will be a need to improve the boundary between human use areas and elephant habitat. Reducing of perimeter length, improving the shape of the elephant habitat at the perimeter, restoring corridors, etc. can be done if there are land swaps made to ra- tionalize the boundary. In most cases the local area may not have suitable area for ag- riculture so land elsewhere such as isolated forest patches can be given in such land swaps and the recovered land would need to be developed as elephant habitat. This again requires clear planning and prioritising as it may not be possible in all areas.
Habitat fragmentation: Fragmentation causes far more harm that the actual physical areas used by a development project or the other causes for fragmentation and, therefore, special attention needs to be given to this aspect. 1.

ation causes far more harm that the actual physical areas used by a development project or the other causes for fragmentation and, therefore, special attention needs to be given to this aspect.

1. Fragmentation caused by linear development can sometime be reversed not by re- moval of the development but by developing passages across the area. This is particu- larly true with roads, railway lines canals, and penstock pipes. However, two im-

37 portant points need to be taken into consideration. First, such interventions offer relief to only a small sub-set of the affected population as not all elephant clans will use the same paths. Elephants using other paths would have come into conflict elsewhere and are unlikely to come back to check if the passage is still open. Second, such inter- ventions are likely to be very expensive in many cases. So inputs need to be priori- tized and should be based on good data and analysis of the need. 2. Within the major landscapes that harbour viable populations of elephants, efforts can be made to restore more recently fragmented corridors that are still being used by el- ephants. However, corridors to address the needs of dispersing animals or those liv- ing in high conflict areas, which do not have much potential for long-term conserva- tion, should not be attempted without a detailed study.

s to address the needs of dispersing animals or those liv- ing in high conflict areas, which do not have much potential for long-term conserva- tion, should not be attempted without a detailed study. Containing residual elephant-human conflict Despite all these efforts elephant-human conflicts will still persist at the interface of for- ests and human use areas, and this can only be done by stopping elephants from entering such areas or, where that fails, by compensating people for the loss.

1. Conservation and Coexistence Zones (see Table 3 on page 46) 1.1 Guarding: This method is the primary factor reducing conflicts and as such there is a need to improve it as it is largely implemented by farmers. It is suitable for low conflict areas and is the best way of stopping opportunistic crop raiding. It is not effective against obligatory crop raiding elephants. a. Need to identify all methods used and assess them to find out the most effective and innovative approaches. These methods can then be taught to others. b. Capacity building of communities is critical so that they are aware of their options and the most effective methods. They also have to be trained in organizing com- munity-based protection and planning. c. Facilitating guarding (everything should be done through Eco-development Committees, Joint Forest Management committees or similar institutions). d. Organizing community guarding is important as it allows individual farmers rest as the work load per individual in community guarding is far less than when done independently. e.

nstitutions). d. Organizing community guarding is important as it allows individual farmers rest as the work load per individual in community guarding is far less than when done independently. e. Developing anti-depredation squads where conflict is higher. Such drives should only focus on driving the elephants away from the village and its agricultural field and should not extend the drive by more than 500 meters into the forest. f. This would involve development of community based anti-depredation squads that can function independently. Such squads should be supported by training them in elephant driving techniques. g. Anti-depredation squads to deal with elephants that are more problematic should also be developed. They would be largely deployed in areas, which do not have

38 barriers, and also in areas with barriers where they would guard the fence and that would make it more effective. They too would need to drive the elephants only for a certain distance into the forest. A long drive may result in un-necessary disturbance to other elephants and it may also send these elephants to the next village. They would need the following support in the form of vehicles to cover large areas, noise-making devices, training in driving tactics and safety measures when dealing with elephants, and knowledge of map reading and using tools like GPS 1.2 Barriers: Primarily barriers involve Electric Fences (EF) and Elephant Proof Trenches (EPT). These are needed where elephant-human conflict is severe and obligatory.

g and using tools like GPS 1.2 Barriers: Primarily barriers involve Electric Fences (EF) and Elephant Proof Trenches (EPT). These are needed where elephant-human conflict is severe and obligatory. In areas with very serious conflicts only EPT will work in a meaningful way. Electric fences are powered by energizers and they give out electricity in very short pulses (milliseconds) and are hence not a danger to animals or people. Both Electric Fences and EPTs have failed in many areas primarily because of faulty implementation and monitoring. So these need to be rectified. Community participation is critical from de- sign stage to monitoring, rather than entrust this to profit-making companies.
1.3Compensation: When all else fails and elephants do get through and cause damage compensation has to be paid.
a. Adequate compensation needs to be given but this cannot be a direct value of the loss as it would then remove all motivation to protect crops or to participate in any protection activity. b. Timely disbursal of compensation with minimum paper work for the claimant and without repeated visits to the government offices is needed. 1.4 Dealing with elephants that disperse out of the normal elephant ranges: These ele- phants wander off into areas where people are not aware of elephants and generally where no habitat exists. What is seen from several such dispersals is that the cost in terms of loss of human lives and elephant deaths is very high.

people are not aware of elephants and generally where no habitat exists. What is seen from several such dispersals is that the cost in terms of loss of human lives and elephant deaths is very high. In the absence of a pol- icy on such problems an ad hoc approach is taken where little or nothing tangible is done other than chase the elephants around. There is a clear need to develop a clear policy on such dispersals and the policy needs to address the following: a. Should such dispersals be allowed? These generally happen when habitat condi- tions in their original range are degraded to a point where they cannot get enough sustenance to survive or where local over abundance has driven them out. The policy can be a yes or no or it can be neutral and allow decision making based on the availability of habitat in the new areas and the potential to ensure that severe conflict does not take place.
b. If they are to be retained in the new area then resources needed to manage them would have to be made available as soon as the problem starts. Capacity building of local staff and awareness campaigns in the newly affected areas would have to be started immediately if high human casualties are to be stopped. c. Support staff from areas with elephants would have to be deputed to take charge

igns in the newly affected areas would have to be started immediately if high human casualties are to be stopped. c. Support staff from areas with elephants would have to be deputed to take charge

39 of the situation d. Plans for containing them is some suitable area would also have to be made and implemented e. If however dispersal is not to be allowed these elephants would have to be either translocated back to their native habitat and barriers built to ensure that they do not break out again. They would also need to be radio-collared to monitor if they break out elsewhere and also to understand what factor drove them out of their original home range.
2. Removal Zones Elephants living in non-viable areas (see Table 3 on page 46), outside their normal range, need to removed as they take the bulk of conservation funds and do not provide any conservation gains. The only option is such cases where there is no elephant habitat and little potential for long-term conservation is removal. This can be done in the following ways a. Bringing into captivity: These elephants can be captured and brought into captivity and kept in captivity for the rest of their lives. There are no direct conservation gains as these elephants are lost to the wild. The gene pool of these elephants is however preserved. Indirect gains may also accrue from the use of these elephants to patrol forests for protection or use them in management of conflicts.

wild. The gene pool of these elephants is however preserved. Indirect gains may also accrue from the use of these elephants to patrol forests for protection or use them in management of conflicts. Humane management of such elephants is critical so all such camps would need to have quality mainte- nance standards and these would need to be effectively monitored. Adequate re- sources would need to be dedicated for their maintenance. b. Translocation: These elephants can be translocated to their native habitat but only when their habitat has been fully covered with barriers so that they do not wander out again. They can also be translocated to other good habitats far away so that they cannot return. This also brings the risk of transferring the conflict problem to another area. In such cases (absence of barriers) there would be a need to have monitoring teams and intervention teams to ensure that they do not come out of their new range and cause problems or try to return. Translocation may offer some conservation gain as these elephants continue to live in the wild in viable areas. c. Fertility control: In situ fertility control using immuno-contraceptives is a possible option, but requires more research as well as considerable difficulties in field imple- mentation. Further, this method would take time scales of several decades to reduce elephant population size, with the result that conflicts would continue in the mean- time. d. Culling: From the ethical, socio-cultural and legal perspectives the option of killing entire family groups is not available.

ze, with the result that conflicts would continue in the mean- time. d. Culling: From the ethical, socio-cultural and legal perspectives the option of killing entire family groups is not available. An individual elephant that has become danger- ous to people may be proscribed by the Chief Wildlife Warden under Chapter 11 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.

40 2.3 Population and habitat viability for elephant conservation Although a slow breeder, with adult females producing a calf every 4-5 years on average, the death rates in elephants are also extremely low with adults typically experiencing 1- 3% mortality each year. Asian elephant populations are capable on increasing in the medium-term at a rate of not more than about 2% per year9. Typically, when an animal population reaches the “carrying capacity” of the habitat in which it is found, the popula- tion growth rate slows down because of lowered birth rate or increased death rate or both, a process known as “density-dependent” regulation of the population. On the other hand, a population that has reached or exceeded the carrying capacity may also show “range expansion” or “disperse” to newer habitats and successfully colonize them. When sufficient natural habitat is not available for them to disperse to, such attempts at disper- sal usually fail as the elephants may come into serious conflict with people and be elimi- nated eventually. Dispersal of elephants may also be associated with adverse climatic events such as a serious drought17.

il as the elephants may come into serious conflict with people and be elimi- nated eventually. Dispersal of elephants may also be associated with adverse climatic events such as a serious drought17.

The conservation of elephants has to take into consideration, not only the above ecological processes, but also the viability of a population in demographic and genetic terms18,19as well as the viability of its habitat. Population and habitat viability analysis (PHVA) has been extensively used for various species in order to determine the risk that a population faces from stochastic (chance) extinction (Conservation Breeding Specialist Group of IUCN/SSC).In general, the smaller the size of an animal population the greater the risk it faces from chance extinction, and a similar argument can be made with respect to habitat area available for a population. With regard to Asian elephants, models have shown that a population of 100-300 elephants depending on structure, sex ratio, demog- raphy and ecological pressures would be needed to ensure high probability of survival over a 100-year period with minimum genetic erosion, and a much larger number, per- haps 10-fold, for long-term conservation6. The minimum habitat area required to achieve these conservation targets for elephants would be of the order of 200-600 km2 in the short term and 2000-6000 km2 in the long term depending on habitat type, quality and carrying capacity5,20.

eve these conservation targets for elephants would be of the order of 200-600 km2 in the short term and 2000-6000 km2 in the long term depending on habitat type, quality and carrying capacity5,20.

An examination of Karnataka’s elephant areas shows that the isolated and rela- tively small population in northern Karnataka has sufficient habitat but perhaps insuffi- cient numbers, the isolated Bhadra Tiger Reserve meets the requirement of both viable population size and viable habitat in the short-term, while the larger Mysore Elephant Reserve certainly meets both these requirements for long-term conservation of the ele- phant. The viability of other areas, either in terms of population size or in terms of natu- ral habitat available, is questionable.

17 Sukumar, R. 1995. Minimum viable populations for elephant conservation. In: JC Daniel and HS Datye (eds.) A Week with Elephants. Oxford University Press, New Delhi. 18 Shaffer, M. 1981. Minimum viable populations for species conservation. BioScience 31: 131-134. 19 Boyce, M. 1992. Population viability analysis. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23: 481-506. 20 Ambruster, P. and Lande, R. 1993. A population viability analysis for African elephant (Loxodonta africana): How big should reserves be? Conservation Biology 7: 602-610.

41

Picture courtesy: Google Earth Elephant Conservation Zone Elephant Coexistence Zone Elephant Removal Zone

ant (Loxodonta africana): How big should reserves be? Conservation Biology 7: 602-610.

41

Picture courtesy: Google Earth Elephant Conservation Zone Elephant Coexistence Zone Elephant Removal Zone

43 Chapter 3
Managing wild elephants in Karnataka: a zone-based prioritisation approach 3.1 Introduction Conservation policy in India currently adopts approaches that are both land-based and species-based. On the one hand, we have designated lands—our protected areas (PAs)— where wildlife conservation is accorded highest priority. On the other hand, we have also legislated that certain species must be protected regardless of where they occur. These two approaches coincide easily when a protected species generally stays within the con- fines of a PA. But when a large and potentially dangerous animal like the elephant occurs in or moves beyond PA boundaries into areas that include not only forests, but also agri- cultural lands and settlements, then the land-based approach falls short and the species- based approaches comes into conflict with human lives and livelihoods. This has been at the core of the elephant-human conflict issue in Karnataka and elsewhere.

pproach falls short and the species- based approaches comes into conflict with human lives and livelihoods. This has been at the core of the elephant-human conflict issue in Karnataka and elsewhere.

While we can, and indeed must, prioritise the conservation of elephant within designated PAs, can we accord the species the same privilege where they occur far from PAs or Elephant Reserves, often in the heart of human dwelling and production areas? The wide-ranging nature of elephants brings this problem sharply into focus, and re- quires strategies that extend outside PAs into broader conservation landscapes and be- yond, but in a graduated manner. Unless distinct and unambiguous management priori- ties are provided to the Forest Department for distinct regions, elephant conservation and human well-being will remain riddled with confusion and contradictions.

We begin by reiterating the broad goals of elephant conservation laid down in Chapter 1: to ensure the long-term survival of viable populations of elephants living in viable habitats, as well as reducing conflict levels between elephants and people so as to relieve human suffering, promote greater acceptance and tolerance of elephants. This needs to be done in a way that is inclusive, and both financially and technically feasible.

and people so as to relieve human suffering, promote greater acceptance and tolerance of elephants. This needs to be done in a way that is inclusive, and both financially and technically feasible.

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, prioritizing elephant conser- vation could impose a major cost of people’s livelihoods, while in others current liveli- hood 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 coexistence between elephants and people, but at local scales may prioritise one over the other.

In this chapter, we outline a rationale and the specific criteria for the zonation strategy we propose for Karnataka (sections 3.2 and 3.3). We then suggest the main man- agement strategies for each of these zones (section 3.4), including zone-specific and cross- cutting strategies. We then illustrate the assignment of zones and the application of man- agement strategies to particular sites, using case studies (sections 3.5.1, 3.5.2, and 3.5.4). These also relate to certain specific issues referred to us by the Honourable High Court. More detailed discussion of some of the key strategies then follows in Chapter 4 (corridor protection), Chapter 5 (cross-cutting issues) and Chapter 6 (captive elephant welfare).

rable High Court. More detailed discussion of some of the key strategies then follows in Chapter 4 (corridor protection), Chapter 5 (cross-cutting issues) and Chapter 6 (captive elephant welfare).

44 3.2 Elephant management zones in Karnataka: the rationale The habitats currently inhabited by elephants in Karnataka (Figure 2) encompass a diverse ecological and socioeconomic milieu. While some PAs in the north have little

Figure 2: Distribution of elephants in Karnataka state in relation to its forest cover.

45 elephant presence, elephants occur frequently outside non-PA forests as well as in non- forested landscapes. On the whole, it appears that three types of situations occur com- monly. Some areas are characterized by large, unbroken tracts of natural habitat with relatively low levels of human presence and activity, and year-round supply of forage and water under which large elephant populations can flourish over the long-term. Na- garahole and Bandipur National Parks are good examples of this situation. At the other extreme, there are areas such as Alur taluk of Hassan district where relatively small ele- phant populations have taken permanent residence in the heart of agricultural landscapes dotted with hundreds of human settlements, resulting in protracted and intense conflict.

elatively small ele- phant populations have taken permanent residence in the heart of agricultural landscapes dotted with hundreds of human settlements, resulting in protracted and intense conflict. A third type of situation is where the natural habitats of a moderately large population of elephants are juxtaposed with human production landscapes over a substantial region in such complex ways that there are virtually no practical options of permanently separat- ing elephants and people. Parts of the coffee-growing region of Kodagu district represent such a situation.

Given this typology of situations, we propose that, for the state of Karnataka, every forest administrative unit (at the level of Forest Range, Section, or Beat/Compartment, as may be appropriate) in the elephant’s distributional range be officially designated under one of three broad management zones:

1. Elephant Conservation Zones, where primarily elephant conservation takes priority over competing livelihood goals;
2. Elephant-Human Coexistence Zones, where both elephant conservation and human livelihoods have to be balanced and reconciled; and
3. Elephant Removal Zones, where concerns of human safety and livelihood take prece- dence over competing conservation concerns about elephants. It should be noted that, in all cases, ‘giving priority’ to one goal does not mean to the complete exclusion of other goals. For instance, in the Elephant Conservation zone, some human settlements are likely to be present and will likely continue to exist.

one goal does not mean to the complete exclusion of other goals. For instance, in the Elephant Conservation zone, some human settlements are likely to be present and will likely continue to exist. The existing framework provided by various laws governing conservation, forests, animal welfare, and land rights, as well as various Supreme Court judgements must, of course, be fol- lowed. The zoning proposed here is a management framework, to be used for defining priorities and strategies within the legal framework.
3.3 Criteria for zonation What should be the basis for such a zonation? Below, in Table 3, we list a preliminary set of criteria that can be used to determine which zone an administrative unit would belong to.

In addition to elephant presence and human populations, area of wild elephant habitat, area of human production activities, and connectivity are criteria that should be used to determine the zonation. Thus, if a given area is part of a large tract of contiguous natural habitat supporting high densities of elephants, with minimal human-use areas, low interface between forest and human use areas, low human densities, and high levels of connectivity to similar habitats, it would qualify as an Elephant Conservation Zone.

imal human-use areas, low interface between forest and human use areas, low human densities, and high levels of connectivity to similar habitats, it would qualify as an Elephant Conservation Zone.

46 Contiguous forested tracts in Mysore, Chamarajanagara and Kodagu districts are prime candidates for inclusion in this Zone. Note that although conservation will be prioritized in this zone, a small number of human settlements would continue to exist within the zone.

Where elephant habitats is of intermediate extent, elephant and human popula- tions are moderate, and the boundary between elephant habitat and agricultural areas is lengthy and convoluted, it is necessary to focus on re-conciliation between livelihoods and conservation through conflict mitigation measures. Prime candidates for such a zone would be in the forest areas north of the Cauvery River up to Gangavara Reserve Forest in Kodagu district as well as the forests of western side of Sakaleshpur taluk in Hassan district (see section 3.6 below).

Finally, areas with small numbers of itinerant or isolated elephant populations in the midst of farming and human-dwelling areas would have to be considered as liveli- hood priority such as the taluks of Alur, Arkalgud, and parts of the elephant range north- west of Bannerghatta, that extend into the districts of Ramanagara, Tumkur, and even Chikmagalur plains would fall into an Elephant Removal Zone.

ur, Arkalgud, and parts of the elephant range north- west of Bannerghatta, that extend into the districts of Ramanagara, Tumkur, and even Chikmagalur plains would fall into an Elephant Removal Zone.

Although we give examples above, we emphasize that actual zonation requires a dedicated effort that brings together data on elephant censuses, land-cover, human popu- lation, etc., and maps them onto forest administrative boundary maps. We also empha- size that the zonation should give far more emphasis on and priority to ecological pat- terns and boundaries rather than to forest and political administrative boundaries (such as Forest Range/Division or taluks/District). In other words, an entire Forest Division or Range need not be classified under a single elephant management zone, but can be sub- divided based on the ground situation and ecological considerations. We recommend that this process of zonation as well as that of guiding elephant management in all the zones be carried out by a Karnataka Elephant Expert Group to be set up for this purpose. 3.4 Management strategies within and across zones Each zone will require different management strategies. We spell out these zone-specific strategies below (sections 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3) followed by an outline of other strategies that would be common to all zones (section 3.4.4). It must be noted that some of these strate- gies are already in use. In those cases, we focus on improvements that may be required.

ther strategies that would be common to all zones (section 3.4.4). It must be noted that some of these strate- gies are already in use. In those cases, we focus on improvements that may be required. Table 3: A preliminary set of ecological and social criteria proposed for designating forest ranges / sections into the three elephant management zones.

Range-wise criteria for zonation A Area of potential forest habitat available High Intermediate Low B Area under human-dominated use Low Intermediate High C Degree of interface between potential forest habitats and human-dominated areas Low Intermediate High D Human population density within the range Low Intermediate High E Measure of elephant abundance (e.g., dung encounter rate) High Intermediate Low F Connectivity value of range in a landscape context High Intermediate Low ! ! ! Suggested management priority > > > CONSERVATION COEXISTENCE REMOVAL Criterion Value

47 3.4.1 Management strategies in the Elephant Conservation Zone Given that elephant conservation has to be the priority in this zone, we suggest the fol- lowing management strategies.

1. Keeping elephants ‘in’: One major strategy already in place is the use of barriers (elephant-proof trenches, electric fences, concrete or other means) to keep elephants in. The quality of current efforts is reviewed separately (Appendix C). This can be ef- fective where long stretches of relatively straight boundaries and easy terrain exist.

moval zone is rigorous examination of its zoning itself, viz., confirming that the area cannot be a co- existence area. Public consultation will be an integral part of this process. Only when it is

51 clear that the co-existence option is not possible should an area be declared a Removal Zone.

1. Identifying the elephant population to be removed: A field survey to determine the composition of the elephant population as well as a basic understanding of its move- ment patterns is a prerequisite to any decision to capture elephants from the Removal Zone. This information would provide a better appreciation of the logistics of the cap- ture operation.
2. Capture: The capture operation itself has to be meticulously planned with the help and participation of experts including veterinarians, mahouts, wildlife biologists and experienced forest officers. Sufficient resources, both in terms of manpower and equipment, would be needed to carry out the operations. Modern methods such as drug immobilization would be the preferred choice in capture.
3. Relocation: The decision on relocation of the elephants to another forest area in the state would depend on a number of considerations including the behavioural patterns of the elephants, the age and sex composition, the number of years the elephants have resided in the Removal Zone, and the acceptance or otherwise of local people at the site of proposed relocation.

e elephants, the age and sex composition, the number of years the elephants have resided in the Removal Zone, and the acceptance or otherwise of local people at the site of proposed relocation. 4. Retention in captivity: If relocation to another natural forest habitat is considered impractical, the elephants should be retained in captivity for use by the forest depart- ment (discussed in Chapter 6) 3.4.4 Cross-cutting strategies In addition to the above zone-specific management strategies, many strategies would be common to all zones.

1. Awareness building: Many traditional forest-dwellers are well-versed in elephant behaviour and are culturally sensitive to the importance of elephants in the land- scape. However, agrarian communities in general, and recent immigrants in particu- lar, are less knowledgeable and also less sensitive. Across all zones, an awareness building campaign that increases sensitivity but also improves ability to deal with el- ephant presence is required.
2. Improving the ex gratia mechanism: Karnataka state has one of the most generous packages of ex gratia payments for crop damage and human injury/death due to ele- phants. However, improvements in its implementation are necessary and possible. This is discussed at length in Chapter 5.
3. Improving monitoring: Currently, information gathered by the department is not fully collated and available (both within and publicly) for analysis.

e. This is discussed at length in Chapter 5. 3. Improving monitoring: Currently, information gathered by the department is not fully collated and available (both within and publicly) for analysis. For instance, in- formation on the exact location of elephant death, human death or crop damage is not collected (only village names are noted where possible, no GPS reading is taken), and (more important) this information is not passed on regularly to CCF Project Elephant from across the state, nor stored centrally elsewhere. Thus, the KFD had to put in substantial efforts to collate this information for this Task Force to produce maps of human-elephant conflict sites.

52 4. Research: Specific studies are required on elephant demography, role of the exotic invasive plant Lantana camara in affecting elephant habitat, strategies for replacing monoculture plantations in elephant habitats, elephant ecology, and the functioning of the compensation programme, among other themes. These research needs are dis- cussed in more detail in Chapter 7 5. Long-term planning and adaptive management: None of the above strategies is either formulaic or easy to implement. Moreover, the KFD staff has many other tasks on their hands, not just elephant conservation, and do not always all the necessary expertise in-house. Consequently, a designated body for setting direction, planning, assistance, and advice in implementation is essential for elephant conservation in Karnataka state to reach the next level of effectiveness and social sensitivity.

for setting direction, planning, assistance, and advice in implementation is essential for elephant conservation in Karnataka state to reach the next level of effectiveness and social sensitivity. For this purpose, we recommend, as mentioned above, the creation of a Karnataka Elephant Expert Group under the State Board for Wildlife, with the following terms of refer- ence. Composition: This Group must include ecologists/wildlife biologists and social scien- tists who can bring in sound knowledge of elephant ecology and human society, along with the Chief Wildlife Warden and other relevant forest officers. Tasks in the Planning Phase: In the planning phase (say, two years), the Group shall undertake a rigorous effort to compile (and, where needed, generate) data on ele- phant ecology and behaviour, land use and land cover, and socioeconomic factors among others, and map them on to forest administrative boundary maps to propose a zonation of elephant’s range across Karnataka into Conservation, Coexistence and Removal Zones. Further, they shall propose a Karnataka Elephant Conservation and Management Plan comprising detailed zone- and site-specific strategies, as well as crosscutting state-wide strategies to enable elephant conservation at the level of For- est Divisions. The Group should develop clear guidelines on the management of each zone (including the corrective action to be taken for measures that are not yielding the expected results), which should become the basis for the management approach to be taken by KFD.

nt of each zone (including the corrective action to be taken for measures that are not yielding the expected results), which should become the basis for the management approach to be taken by KFD. In doing this, we urge the Group to also take into account the action plan and recommendations of the first Task Force set up in 1990 by Government of India to prepare the blueprint for Project Elephant at the national level, as well as the Elephant Task Force in its 2010 report, Gajah21. In addition, in the context of consoli- dating elephant landscapes, we think it would also be very helpful if the Group takes into account the approach and recommendations of the Western Ghats Ecology Ex- pert Panel on delineating ecologically sensitive areas22. The Group must also make recommendations on relevant legal and financial mechanisms needed at the State lev- el to implement the Plan. Tasks in Implementation Phase: After the planning phase, we recommend that the State Government create the necessary mechanisms and allocate financial resources to sup- port the implementation of this Plan. In the first phase of implementation (say, three

21 Government of India. 2010. Gajah: securing the future for elephants in India. http://www.moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/ETF_REPORT_FINAL.pdf 22 Government of India. 2011. Report of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel. http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/wg-23052012.pdf

in/downloads/public-information/ETF_REPORT_FINAL.pdf 22 Government of India. 2011. Report of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel. http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/wg-23052012.pdf

53 years following the planning phase), the Group shall itself provide guidance and, where necessary, also help the process of implementing the Plan. Review and Course Corrections: We recommend that detailed annual reviews of imple- mentation are held at the field- and state-level. Further, the Plan itself must be subject to five-yearly technical reviews, and revised as appropriate. The entire planning and implementation must involve public processes, and at the end of the fifth year, be subject to both open expert reviews, as well as public audits of process and outcome. 6. Implementing recommendations in the above sections has considerable financial implications. The Government of Karnataka must strengthen elephant conservation in the State by increasing its budgetary allocation (and by leveraging additional funds from the Central Government). We also recommend that the State must empower this Expert Group (Para 5 above) to monitor the effective utilization of these funds and other resources towards elephant conservation. 3.5 Case studies Having outlined the possible strategies to be used in each zone and cross-cutting ones, we now illustrate how specific strategies may be chosen and management decisions may be made for specific sites.

ing outlined the possible strategies to be used in each zone and cross-cutting ones, we now illustrate how specific strategies may be chosen and management decisions may be made for specific sites. We undertake a detailed examination of issues at three sites— Bandipur, south-western Sakaleshpur, and Alur—falling in the Conservation, Coexist- ence and Removal zones, respectively. In the case of Bandipur, some innovative strategies have already been implemented, and we review and highlight their gains, and suggest improvements. The other two cases pertain to sites of significant human-elephant con- flict, for which the Honourable High Court has specifically sought recommendations from this Task Force. Accordingly, we evaluate options and recommend ways forward. In addition to detailed case studies from these three sites, we also summarise an analysis of issues from Malavalli Range of Mandya along River Cauvery, pertaining to disturb- ances to elephant habitat, and possibly driving their dispersal from traditional ranges. 3.5.1 Bandipur: strengthening management in the Elephant Conservation Zone Location and characteristics Bandipur is not only a National Park and Tiger Reserve, but also a key area for elephant conservation and naturally falls into the Conservation Zone. Spread over an area of 880 km2 in the southern Mysore plateau, this national park adjoins the Nagarahole National Park and Tiger Reserve to its north, Waynad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala) to its west, and Mudumalai Tiger Reserve (Tamil Nadu) to its south.

ateau, this national park adjoins the Nagarahole National Park and Tiger Reserve to its north, Waynad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala) to its west, and Mudumalai Tiger Reserve (Tamil Nadu) to its south. To the north it abuts the cultivated plains of the Mysore plateau. With a rainfall gradient from east (low) to west (high), Bandipur includes tropical dry thorn forest, dry deciduous forest and patches of moist deciduous forest. The Nugu and Mulehole are two perennial rivers flowing through Bandipur, while the Kabini reservoir along its northern boundary also holds water throughout the year. A number of artificial waterholes and the Mangala dam in the tour- ism zone are also important sources of water for wildlife. Bandipur has no human settle- ment within its boundaries with the exception of forest-department facilities.

54 Controlling poaching The park management keeps vigil against through its network of 38 anti-poaching camps and recently created Special Tiger Protection Force, which are mainly distributed across sensitive locations. As a result, poaching cases over the last 5 years, according to official figures, have been nil, whereas, in the previous 10 years, a total 27 animals had been poached. Strengthening and maintaining barriers Following a huge escalation of conflicts and retaliatory killing of elephants in 2008-09, Bandipur commenced a concerted effort to strengthen its inclusion barriers, mainly to the north of the park where the main interface with agriculture lies.

aliatory killing of elephants in 2008-09, Bandipur commenced a concerted effort to strengthen its inclusion barriers, mainly to the north of the park where the main interface with agriculture lies. As a result, up to 2012, a total of 218 km of electric fencing, and a total of 175 km of elephant-proof trenches were created. In order to ensure better maintenance, 102 km of service roads were constructed along the fence, and 26 sheds were constructed all along the fence perimeter to ensure maintenance. This has had a significant impact on the number of crop damage incidents, human deaths from elephants as well as on the retaliatory killing of elephants by farmers (see Table 4). One of the key aspects of this effort has also been the involvement of local Eco Development Committees drawn from local people, which have been empowered and supported to maintain these barriers. These arrangements with local communities need to be clearly documented to ensure that there is continuity and improvement in their functioning despite turnover in officials.

Managing elephant habitat inside Protected Areas One of the key issues in Bandipur concerns the management of elephant habitats within its forest areas. Many activities undertaken by the management are in the belief that such action helps—or at least, does not hurt—conservation of wildlife.

e management of elephant habitats within its forest areas. Many activities undertaken by the management are in the belief that such action helps—or at least, does not hurt—conservation of wildlife. However, there is ac- cumulating evidence here and elsewhere that such actions, which include the regular clearing and maintenance of a dense network of roads, altering of local hydrological Table 4: Trends in conflict as indexed by crop damage claims and disbursements, and elephant and human deaths in conflict in Bandipur before and after extensive effort to strengthen barriers along its northern boundary in 2009-10. (Source: KFD data) Year

Total crop damage claims Total dis- bursements Electrocution of elephants Human deaths (No.of incidents) (in lakh rupees) (No.of elephants) (No. of per- sons) 2007 – 08 4,911 47.29 9 6 2008 – 09
8,870 93.47 10 4 2009 – 10
6,040 97.20 8 2 2010 – 11
2,408 50.56 3 1 2011 – 12
680 14.00 3 0

) (No.of elephants) (No. of per- sons) 2007 – 08 4,911 47.29 9 6 2008 – 09
8,870 93.47 10 4 2009 – 10
6,040 97.20 8 2 2010 – 11
2,408 50.56 3 1 2011 – 12
680 14.00 3 0

55 regimes through the creation of check dams and waterholes, may not always be benign23. As part of being a Tiger Reserve, Bandipur has prepared Tiger Conservation Plans that have been reviewed, and the impact of management activities is one area where many pertinent observations have been made by reviewers, which need to be taken on board even in the context of elephant conservation. On a related note, as an area that is part of an alternate management regime which prioritises the tiger, it is of utmost importance that these measures be made more coherent with the objectives of elephant conservation.

Even with a relatively well-consolidated park like Bandipur, we noted that there are issues of possible encroachments (around Huskur Mala of Moliyur Range) and prob- lems of disputed boundaries (near Kenchanahalli in N. Begur Range). These issues are long-pending and must be addressed at the soonest. Managing non-PA notified forests for conservation by rationalising administration Bandipur TR has pursued the rationalisation of management within designated forest areas fairly systematically. Over the last three years, it has ensured that areas that were immediately abutting Bandipur, but administratively outside their control, have been brought under their control.

irly systematically. Over the last three years, it has ensured that areas that were immediately abutting Bandipur, but administratively outside their control, have been brought under their control. Examples of this include the newly created Omkara Range, where elephants from Bandipur had moved into this area (which was earlier part of Mysore Forest Division) causing serious conflicts, especially during 2007-08. Likewise, the recent inclusion of Gundlupet Range (earlier part of Kollegal forest Division) as a Buffer Range of Bandipur TR is a welcome move. However, the anomaly is that Nugu, which was previously managed as part of Bandipur TR, is now administratively under Mysore Wildlife Division, which is an anomaly that must be corrected. Addressing the threat of commercial and developmental projects In general, Bandipur’s legal status as National Park and Tiger Reserve has helped stave off threats to elephant habitats within its boundaries from commercial and developmen- tal projects. Provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) and Forest (Conservation) Acts have been used systematically, and public opinion too has favoured protection of remaining habitats. In 2010, there was a strong public sentiment against the proposed mining on the fringes of Omkara Range in Bolegowdanakatte, as a result of which the project became politically infructuous.

bitats. In 2010, there was a strong public sentiment against the proposed mining on the fringes of Omkara Range in Bolegowdanakatte, as a result of which the project became politically infructuous.
Reducing human dependence on forest biomass Although long known as a park without human settlements within it (which is some- thing of a rarity in India), Bandipur has always had a significant human footprint on its elephant habitats. This has been mainly in the form of pressures of fuel wood harvest and livestock grazing from the c. 200 villages along its northern boundary. Since 2004, an exemplary initiative led by an NGO called Namma Sangha (supported by the State and Central governments), which has worked cooperatively with the forest department, has led a shift in cooking fuel from forest-based fuelwood to cooking gas in almost all of the 35,000 households residing outside Bandipur. In households that were monitored be- tween 2004 and 2007, there was a substantial decline of 65% in fuel-wood consumption

23A recent study by Prasad (2009) Environmental Conservation, 36:201-207), has shown significantly higher rates of tree death along road edges in Bandipur, which increases with width of cleared areas along roads.

y by Prasad (2009) Environmental Conservation, 36:201-207), has shown significantly higher rates of tree death along road edges in Bandipur, which increases with width of cleared areas along roads.

56 (MD Madhusudan, unpublished data). Rather than punish villagers for harvesting an essential resource, Namma Sangha has made conservation-friendly energy alternatives affordable, and thus pioneered a creative solution that has made a significant positive change as regards one of India’s most difficult conservation problems.
Notifying deemed forests One of Bandipur’s significant achievements is its consolidation of wildlife habitats out- side designated forests. A total of 5,599 acres of revenue lands with forest cover were identified in the south-eastern part of the Tiger Reserve (see Figure 3). These lands are being actively used by a range of endangered wildlife including elephants and tigers, but as revenue lands, they were in constant danger of passing into land-uses that were not congruent with conservation objectives. Through a series of constructive collaborations between the Forest and Revenue departments and members of civil society, these lands were transferred from the Revenue to the Forest department, and paper work was initiat- ed to notify these lands as RFs. Recognising that these areas were still used by local communities for grazing, the notification has however kept these areas out of the core of the Bandipur Tiger Reserve and open to these uses by local communities.

hese areas were still used by local communities for grazing, the notification has however kept these areas out of the core of the Bandipur Tiger Reserve and open to these uses by local communities. In an area where there was rapid conversion of revenue lands to resorts and vacation homes, this move has considerably strengthened habitat contiguity for elephants in a sensitive region.
Declaring adjoining areas as Eco-Sensitive Areas to regulate land-use Bandipur has also sought to regulate land use in private lands adjoining the PA bounda-

Figure 3: In order to consolidate elephant habitats around Bandipur TR, previously unprotected deemed forests under revenue jurisdiction have been handed over to the forest department and notified under Section 4 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.

57 ry. This is a sensitive matter with profound implications to the rights of local people, and it is hence crucial that it is the outcome of a genuinely inclusive decision-making process. It is among India’s first protected areas to notify an Eco-Sensitive Area (ESA, under the Environment Protection Act, 1986) for this purpose (see Figure 4). The ESA in Bandipur, incidentally, is also the buffer to the tiger reserve. The draft ESA notification issued in September 2011 has been publicly debated and changes have been made to it based on inputs of local communities and elected representatives. A final notification is now due.

A notification issued in September 2011 has been publicly debated and changes have been made to it based on inputs of local communities and elected representatives. A final notification is now due. This notification ensures that large-scale transformations of surrounding private lands that may be inimical to wildlife conservation inside the park (e.g., creation of polluting industries, or unregulated expansion of tourist resorts) are prevented, whereas land-uses that provide local sustenance continue unhindered. Further, a broad-based management structure provides local representation in the management of the ESA.

Research and monitoring: more can be done One of points that these data above highlight is the need for strengthening research and monitoring efforts. Although the park does keep records of conflict incidents, to have such data gathered and organised better would directly help management assess its own impact and take corrective action. This must include systems to monitor not just elephant populations and conflicts, but also to maintain records on barriers themselves, as well as on post-mortems of all elephant mortalities. The issue of research on elephant popula- tions, their habitats and interactions with people is dealt with in Chapter 7.

Figure 4: Areas to the north of Bandipur notified as Ecologically Sensitive Areas under the Environ- ment (Protection) Act, 1986

habitats and interactions with people is dealt with in Chapter 7.

Figure 4: Areas to the north of Bandipur notified as Ecologically Sensitive Areas under the Environ- ment (Protection) Act, 1986

58 3.5.2 Malavalli Range: understanding disturbance and dispersing elephants
Introduction Towards the south-eastern part of the state, forests on either side of the Cauvery River in Mandya, Kollegal Wildlife and Kollegal Forest Divisions form an important habitat for elephants, while the river itself is a critical lifeline for these animals in an otherwise dry and rugged habitat. Several pressures on this habitat have been developing—especially in and around Malavalli Range of Mandya Division—in recent years in the form of in- creased tourism and mini-hydel projects. At the same time, elephant-human conflicts along the periphery of this region have been growing, and elephants are now more fre- quently reported to be moving far away from traditionally-used areas. In this section, we briefly summarise an analysis of factors that have contributed to these problems in this region, based on a detailed report24 commissioned earlier by the Karnataka Forest De- partment, and authored by Sri Ajay Desai, Member of this Task Force.

have contributed to these problems in this region, based on a detailed report24 commissioned earlier by the Karnataka Forest De- partment, and authored by Sri Ajay Desai, Member of this Task Force. Trends in elephant populations and human-elephant conflict There is no reliable information on the trends in elephant populations of this region yet, but based on the data available from the Synchronised Elephant Censuses, it can be safely said that these areas, especially taken together with the adjacent areas of Kollegal Wildlife and Forest Divisions, are an important part of the state’s elephant range. Although hu- man elephant conflict in Mandya is not new, there are indications of an increase in its frequency and/or intensity. Human killing by elephants increased from an average of 0.3 people/year during the 2000-09 period to 1.7 people/year in the 2009-2012 period. Dur- ing this period, injuries caused by elephants increased from an average of 1.4 peo- ple/year to 3.7 people/year. Further, cases of crop losses reported rose from 58 cas- es/year to 140 cases/year during the same period. Movement patterns have not been rigorously documented, but anecdotal evidence suggests elephants now using areas where they were traditionally not known to occur. Potential drivers: perturbations to elephant habitat As wide-ranging animals, elephants in a particular area are very likely to be affected by changes in habitat in adjoining administrative areas to which their ecological ranges may extend.

habitat As wide-ranging animals, elephants in a particular area are very likely to be affected by changes in habitat in adjoining administrative areas to which their ecological ranges may extend. Hence, this survey considered, not only Mandya Forest Division but also parts of the Kollegal Wildlife Division (Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary) and the Kollegal Forest Division. Habitat loss Habitat loss is a well-known factor causing human elephant conflict25. There are elephant habitats in Mandya Division that are not part of designated forests, and as a result, they

24Desai, A. A. 2011. Elephant problems in the western part of Mandya Division (Karnataka). Unpublished report submitted to Karnataka Forest Department. 43 pages. 25AsERSM 2006. Report: Asian Elephant Range States Meet. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 2006. Report by: Dub- lin, H., Desai, A.A., Hedges, S., Vie. J.C., Bambaradeniya and Lopez, A. IUCN-SSC Report. IUCN, Switzer- land.; Desai, A. A. 1998. Technical Report: Management Strategies for the Conservation of Elephants and Mitigation of Human-Elephant Conflict. GEF Project, FAO. Colombo, Sri Lanka. Sukumar R., 1989. The Asian elephant: Ecology and management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Elephants and Mitigation of Human-Elephant Conflict. GEF Project, FAO. Colombo, Sri Lanka. Sukumar R., 1989. The Asian elephant: Ecology and management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

59 have been more vulnerable to encroachment and other loss. These problems seem partic- ularly chronic in Sathyagala Jagir and Dhanaguru State Forest. Another factor that adds to this problem is that optimal elephant habitats (flat areas also suitable for agriculture) have been lost and sub-optimal habitat (hills) remain for elephants.
Habitat fragmentation & degradation
Habitat fragmentation, too, is a major factor in altering elephant movement patterns and precipitating human elephant conflicts2. Three aspects of fragmentation were noted:

The first aspect is that habitats that are reduced to bottlenecks from past habitat loss are experiencing further degradation, and eventually fragmentation, due to anthro- pogenic pressures like cattle grazing and fuel wood removal making them less suitable for elephants.

The second issue is the construction of physical barriers such as canals, pipelines and roads that can cut off access to important parts of the elephant habitat and by ob- structing traditional movement paths2. In Mandya Division, several private mini-hydro power projects have come up in recent years, the resulting network of canals, penstock pipes, powerhouses, roads and power evacuation lines fragment the western parts of the elephant range here. Disturbance is the additional problem these developments generate.

rk of canals, penstock pipes, powerhouses, roads and power evacuation lines fragment the western parts of the elephant range here. Disturbance is the additional problem these developments generate. A good example is the Dhanaguru State Forest, which is cut into two parts by the Shimsha Power house, its pipelines, canals and service roads, which run all the way from Nettakallu Village to Shimsha Village, and into the gorge to the Shimsha River. It was not clear if the environmental impact assessments and forest clearances for these mini-hydro- electric power projects have taken into account their potential impact on elephants. Given the obstructions to elephant movement and disturbance that these mini-hydro electric projects are causing, they could be a significant reason for elephant dispersal that is not consistent with known patterns.

The third concern is that, as a consequence of on-going habitat loss and degrada- tion—especially livestock grazing and fuel wood removal—there are many poorly- shaped habitat patches with elongated interfaces between human use areas and elephant habitat, which increase the likelihood of conflict.
Human-caused disturbances Human disturbances—which come in several forms such as developmental activity, mini hydro-power projects, increased vehicular traffic, increased human settlement at project sites, and the activities of service industries that follow—are largely underrated but can have a significant impact on elephant ranging and habitat use.

ffic, increased human settlement at project sites, and the activities of service industries that follow—are largely underrated but can have a significant impact on elephant ranging and habitat use. Research26 has shown that elephants (non-crop raiding groups and males) avoid human use areas by more than 1 km even when these contains critical resources such as access to water.

Tourism, too, is becoming a major disturbance in this area. There are two types of tourism, namely, religious tourism and wildlife tourism in this region. The main site for religious tourism is the Muthathiraya Temple at Muthathi. Human settlement, a farm and

26 Desai, A. A. and N. Baskaran, 1996. Impact of human activities on the ranging behaviour of elephants in the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, South India. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. December 1996: 93 (3) 559 – 569.

60 the FD recreation area spread across 500 meters on the Cauvery River bank which de- grades and disturb nearly 1.5 to 2 km of river front. As cooking and consuming food here is also part ritual, the report estimates that nearly 2.7 tons of fuel wood would be used on festival days. There is a clear need to regulate and manage tourism in this area.

The economic successes of the fishing-based tourism along the Cauvery River Bank led to the construction of several other camps, all located at pristine sites that are ideal for wildlife (especially elephants).

successes of the fishing-based tourism along the Cauvery River Bank led to the construction of several other camps, all located at pristine sites that are ideal for wildlife (especially elephants). The development of such fishing camps (or tour- ist resorts), some of which are promoted by the State Government undertakings, is in total contradiction to the government’s conservation agenda. They bring in enhanced levels of human disturbance into elephant habitats that were previously far less dis- turbed. There is hence a need to rationalize and come up with a better tourism plan that concentrates these facilities in a single or a couple of areas, rather than have them dis- persed over a wider stretch of elephant habitat as is the case today. Land use changes Land use changes are changes, often on revenue or private lands that can impact ele- phants and their movement patterns depending on their nature, location and scale. At present signs of land use change are present across the landscape here but on a relatively small scale. But this trend is increasing bringing in greater external ownership, develop- ment and human population into the area. Implementation of law and policy that takes into account the ecologically sensitive nature of these lands, while respecting their private ownership is an urgent need in these areas. Discussion While some of these factors can bring about sudden changes in elephant movement and precipitate conflicts, this can be expected only when there are rapid and large-scale changes to habitat.

ussion While some of these factors can bring about sudden changes in elephant movement and precipitate conflicts, this can be expected only when there are rapid and large-scale changes to habitat. This, however, is not the case with the elephant problems in Malavalli. The most likely causes for elephants ‘wandering’ outside the normal range is not due to a sudden changes in habitat quality or extent. They are the result of a gradual build-up and interaction of several factors—habitat loss, fragmentation, disturbance and land-use changes—that can adversely affect elephants. These factors, either singly or in combina- tion, can bring about gradual pressure on elephants until some of the worst affected elephants break away from their normal ranging and are forced to wander in search of better habitat or movement paths. Given the slow pace of these adverse changes and also the slow pace at which the elephants have responded to this change, most of them go undetected in the absence of systematic monitoring of elephant populations and habitats. Urgent measures that reduce the impact of these factors on elephant habitats such as in the forests along the Cauvery are a key need, and options to manage them have already been discussed elsewhere in this chapter, and listed in our recommendations. 3.5.3 South-western Sakaleshpur: human removal or coexistence? Reports of high levels of human-elephant conflict in Hassan and Kodagu district have been circulating for several years now.

dations. 3.5.3 South-western Sakaleshpur: human removal or coexistence? Reports of high levels of human-elephant conflict in Hassan and Kodagu district have been circulating for several years now. However, a closer examination of the situation indicated that the situation in the south-western edge of Hassan district was distinct from

61 that of south-central Hassan district (Alur taluk). The two elephant populations are dis- tinct, and the conflict level in Alur is much higher than that in Sakaleshpur. Thus (as we shall show in detail below), south-western Sakaleshpur exemplifies a co-existence zone.

However, repeated representations have been made by some residents from south-western Sakaleshpur about the elephant menace, and a proposal is with the highest authorities in the state government to purchase several thousand acres of private land to ‘strengthen the elephant corridor’. We have therefore examined the situation in depth, evaluated various options, and made specific recommendations vis-à-vis issues and proposals for conflict mitigation and elephant conservation. Biophysical and social characteristics of region The south-western portion of Sakaleshpur taluk of Hassan district lies along the crest-line of the Western Ghats (see Figure 5), linking forests of Pushpagiri WLS in the south to

Figure 5: Crest-line of the Western Ghats showing study region (see box) of Sakaleshpur taluk.

e crest-line of the Western Ghats (see Figure 5), linking forests of Pushpagiri WLS in the south to

Figure 5: Crest-line of the Western Ghats showing study region (see box) of Sakaleshpur taluk.

62 those of Charmadi and Kudremukha National Park in the north. To its west are the slopes of the Ghats, covered with dense forest that lies with Dakshina Kannada district. This region is characterised by high rainfall (~4000mm annually), natural forest vegeta- tion of the evergreen and semi-evergreen type and a highly undulating terrain, as a result of which this is not ideal habitat for elephants. Thus, the elephant population is relatively small, being estimated to be around 20 elephants ranging over the 70 sq. km forests and neighbouring forests to the west, south and north. Nevertheless, these forests (Bisle RF, Bisle Extension RF and Kagneri RF) have been included in the notification of the Elephant Reserve. In addition to elephants, these forests are also inhabited by tiger, leopard, sloth bear, deer, wild boar, among other fauna, though at low densities.

There is significant human presence, with valleys under crop cultivation (9% of the case study landscape, Figure 6) and many hill-slopes covered with coffee and carda- mom cultivation under a partially opened tree canopy (13%). Also interspersed are signif- icant patches of (possibly anthropogenic) grasslands (12%). There are about 10

Figure 6: Map of southwestern Sakaleshpur showing land use (Data courtesy of KFD)

3%). Also interspersed are signif- icant patches of (possibly anthropogenic) grasslands (12%). There are about 10

Figure 6: Map of southwestern Sakaleshpur showing land use (Data courtesy of KFD)

63 inhabited villages and 4 fully forested villages in the region south of the Mangalore- Hassan highway.

Table 5 shows that in an area of 14,000+ ha, the total officially privately owned land in these 14 villages is about 2,565 ha. Information provided by the DFO Hassan indicates that another 1,871 ha of revenue land has been either sanctioned or is in the process of being sanctioned. About 7,100 ha (is notified Reserve Forests27, and the remain- ing government land of about 4,500 ha was till recently with the Revenue department and classified under various legal categories, largely gomaal land. About one-third of this land has been transferred administratively to the Forest Department since the 1990s and is in various stages of being notified as forest land.28

Thus, although 65% of the landscape is under forest cover of some kind (77% including grasslands), only 50% is under Reserve Forests (Figure 7), leaving 27% in reve- nue classifications. There is significant customary use of these forests and grasslands (especially that in revenue lands) for firewood and grazing, and also as much as 8% of land may be encroached (largely for cardamom and coffee cultivation). This creates a complicated situation for forest and environmental governance.

r firewood and grazing, and also as much as 8% of land may be encroached (largely for cardamom and coffee cultivation). This creates a complicated situation for forest and environmental governance.

In short, this region is characterised by large but sometimes fragmented forest cover, forest under different legal jurisdictions and moderate local use, large areas under coffee cultivation and smaller areas under paddy and other lowland agriculture, and a low density of elephants. While the western half of this region has contiguous RF area, the eastern portion is more fragmented into forests, coffee and cropland.
Elephant Conservation: Status, Challenges and Measures The status of elephants in this region is not well known. The estimated population is about ~20, but its composition and extent of movements is not understood. The availabil- ity of significant relatively undisturbed areas (although not ideal habitat for elephants in terms of terrain or vegetation) means that the elephant population is not under threat from habitat loss. Non-natural elephant deaths are also relatively low, with none being reported in the last two years. The major threats to elephant conservation in this region are:

1. the construction of mini-hydel projects

27 There are significant discrepancies even in the area of notified RF reported by various sources. 28 Source: Annexure 2 of “Status of government lands in Hassan district”.

27 There are significant discrepancies even in the area of notified RF reported by various sources. 28 Source: Annexure 2 of “Status of government lands in Hassan district”. Table 5: Population and land-use information for 14 villages of southwestern Sakaleshpur Total number of households Total popu- lation (2001 census) Total geo- graphical area (ha) Forest area from Census handbook (ha) Khushki (dry land) (ha) Tari (wet land) (ha) Bagayati (orchards) (ha) Coffee (ha) Gram- thaan (ha) Sarkari (revenue) (ha) 722 3,421 14,135 10,540 158 773 3 1453 177 5,995 Source: Census 2001 village amenities register, Hassan Division Working Plan & Revenue Department

64

2. the possible degradation and progressive loss of habitat from illegal felling
3. the possible loss of connectivity with habitats to the North We summarise the nature of these three threats and recommend specific measures to address them. Disturbance due to mini-hydel projects Hydropower is an obvious ‘resource’ of the Western Ghats. However, after an initial phase of major dam construction, the power generation agencies such as Karnataka Pow- er Corporation have faced increasing resistance to the construction of large dams from local communities and environmentalists due to the major damages inflicted. An example of one such a project in this region is the Gundia Hydro-Electric Project (GHEP) proposed by KPC with a generation capacity of 200 MW.

vironmentalists due to the major damages inflicted. An example of one such a project in this region is the Gundia Hydro-Electric Project (GHEP) proposed by KPC with a generation capacity of 200 MW. This project also triggered substantial controversy and the Ministry of Environment and Forests has so far denied environmen- tal clearance for this project. The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel also recommends not going ahead with this project.

As a result, the focus has now shifted to smaller hydropower projects (less than 30MW). Several private power producers have already begun construction of mini-hydel projects in this region, as can be seen from Figure 8. The environmental impacts of such projects are, however, not insignificant and need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Figure 7: Villages and RF boundaries in the southwestern Sakaleshpur region (Data courtesy: KFD)

65 These projects involve the construction of multiple structures (weirs, penstocks, power house, access roads, transmission lines, etc.) at various locations in the forest. The con- struction of these structures causes significant disturbance (see Figure 9). Moreover, once constructed, the penstocks and impounded water can create a significant obstacle to the movement of wildlife, particularly long-distance foraging animals such as elephants.

In the case of south-western Sakaleshpur, it has already been brought to the notice of the High Court that the forest clearances granted to several mini-hydel projects were inappropriate.

ants.

In the case of south-western Sakaleshpur, it has already been brought to the notice of the High Court that the forest clearances granted to several mini-hydel projects were inappropriate. The concerned forest officials certified that the region contained no

Figure 8: Locations of mini-hydel projects sanctioned or being constructed (triangles) in western Sakaleshpur and Mudigere taluks (Map courtesy of Sanjay Gubbi). Figure 9: Tunnel blasted in a thickly forested hillock for Yadakumari mini-hydel project

66 wildlife that is protected under the Wildlife Protection Act, a clear misrepresentation given the presence of elephants, leopards, and other wildlife in the surrounding forests. Furthermore, in the case of Maruthi Zen project, the central clearance process was avoid- ed by disingenuously representing the two turbines as two independent projects so as to slip in below the 25MW threshold for clearance. From all available evidence, the location of these projects is at critical points of elephant movement, thereby if constructed they will significantly reduce the quality of elephant habitat. Specific Recommendations • The forest clearances given without attention to the substance of the FCA must be withdrawn immediately and these projects must be cancelled.
• The officers involved in providing such clearance on the basis of misrepresentation of the biodiversity of this area must be prosecuted.

hdrawn immediately and these projects must be cancelled.
• The officers involved in providing such clearance on the basis of misrepresentation of the biodiversity of this area must be prosecuted.
• All future applications forest clearance related to mini-hydel projects or quarry- ing/mining located in areas that fall within the Elephant Conservation zone or the Co-existence must mandatorily be referred to the Chief Wildlife Warden for assess- ment of potential impact on elephants and other wildlife. Poor regulation/management of areas with forest cover Due to historical reasons, several forested areas of Hassan district have not been notified as Reserve, Protected or Village Forests under the Karnataka Forest Act. The Supreme Court, in the Godavarman case (WP(Civil) No 202 of 1995, T N Godavarman Thirumul- pad vs Union of India), ordered that even such areas should be considered as ‘forest’ for the purposes of the Forest Conservation Act 1980, and it asked the state forest depart- ments to survey and list such areas. These are now called ‘deemed forest areas’ by the FD. In the case study region, the FD has estimated that the area with the revenue depart- ment that is under tree cover and free from encroachments is ~2,800 ha (Annexure I of Hassan Division Working Plan).29 Of this, ~1600 ha have already been transferred to the FD (Annexure II of Hassan Division Working Plan).

There are two types of concerns with lands being physically forested but not legally notified as forest.

ha have already been transferred to the FD (Annexure II of Hassan Division Working Plan).

There are two types of concerns with lands being physically forested but not legally notified as forest. First, diversions of such forested lands to non-forest purposes (such as mini-hydel projects, or coffee cultivation) will occur without following the ‘forest clearance’ procedure under the FCA. The Supreme Court orders are meant to prevent this problem. However, in the absence of a clear change in the legal status of the land and this change being entered in the land records at all levels, the Supreme Court orders can end up being ignored (as there is no way for the village accountant to know—when certifying the status of a piece revenue land—that the land is ‘deemed to be forest land’ for the FCA). There is also the argument that land designated as forest land is better protected from encroachment because that is the responsibility of the FD, whereas if land is desig-

29 Total extent of revenue land: 6543 ha; area over which patta rights have been sanctioned: 253 ha; area for which Form 53 (regularization) applications have already been submitted: 534 ha; area in which ille- gal/unregistered cultivation continues: 1086 ha; thus, area potentially available for transfer to FD: 4,671 ha. Of this, the area that is not wooded: 1,846 ha, Hence thickly wooded area available for transfer: 2825 ha.

ivation continues: 1086 ha; thus, area potentially available for transfer to FD: 4,671 ha. Of this, the area that is not wooded: 1,846 ha, Hence thickly wooded area available for transfer: 2825 ha.

67 nated as revenue land, the Revenue Department is usually unable to prevent encroach- ment because it does not have the staff to ensure land protection. Second, FCA only provides for a procedure in case of diversion of the land. It does not prescribe forest management practices. Tree felling in such revenue lands would attract the Karnataka Tree Preservation Act, but its enforcement remains problematic, unlike with lands managed by the Forest Department. Therefore, it has been argued that changing the legal status of this land to bring it directly under the jurisdiction of the FD will solve both problems of forest-land diversion and regulation of illegal tree felling.

At the same time, due attention needs to be given to other factors. Local commu- nities have historical rights and privileges in these deemed forest lands, some of which are classified as gomaal and therefore specifically designated to meet grazing needs. Conver- sion of such lands into Reserve Forests will result in serious abridgement of the rights of local communities. Historically, the takeover of common lands by the FD has been a source of much conflict in the Western Ghats and elsewhere30. The National Forest Policy of 1988 envisages local participation in the protection and management of forests, espe- cially degraded forest.

rce of much conflict in the Western Ghats and elsewhere30. The National Forest Policy of 1988 envisages local participation in the protection and management of forests, espe- cially degraded forest. Further, the Forest Rights Act, 2006 provides a statutory frame- work for local communities to stake their claims for rights that may not have been properly recorded in the past. In this context, reclassification of revenue lands as forest lands without public consultation and involvement could be tantamount to violation of the FRA. It would therefore be advisable to initiate a procedure that is compatible with the FRA, and to convert these lands through due local consultation to a category which will allow local use such as Protected Forest (or CFR under FRA), generate some local interest in management, and also attract the conservation provisions of the Forest Con- servation Act in a straightforward manner. Moreover, it must be noted that the seemingly fraudulent clearance granted to the existing mini-hydel projects (mentioned above) hap- pened even though the lands were clearly designated as RFs.

Finally, the ETF noted that there is significant confusion over land records in this region: records do not tally between Revenue and Forest department, lands transferred are still not notified, and land details in village cadastral maps are not up to date at all.

d records in this region: records do not tally between Revenue and Forest department, lands transferred are still not notified, and land details in village cadastral maps are not up to date at all. Specific Recommendations • First and foremost, since the problem with confusing land records is particularly severe in potential co-existence areas of western Hassan district, Kodagu, Chikmaga- lur, and Dakshina Kannada districts31, the High Court may direct the Revenue and Forest departments to reconcile their records in these districts, carrying out spot sur- veys where necessary, and this reconciliation should be carried out under the super- vision of a Committee constituted specifically for this purpose. The High Court may also direct the government to make available in the public domain free of cost all ex-

30Buchy, M. 1996.Teak and Arecanut: Colonial State, Forest and People in the Western Ghats (South India) 1800-1947. Pondicherry: Department de sciences sociales, French Institute. Guha, R. 1989.The Unquiet Woods: Ecological Change and Peasant Resistance in the Himalaya. Delhi: Oxford University Press. 31ISEC and NST. 1998. People's database on land tenure, land-use, and land cover for land resource manage- ment: Results of a pilot study in Dakshina Kannada district. Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore and Nagarika Seva Trust, Guruvayanakere, D.K. District

ver for land resource manage- ment: Results of a pilot study in Dakshina Kannada district. Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore and Nagarika Seva Trust, Guruvayanakere, D.K. District

68 isting land record information, including cadastral maps, so as to enable public input into and scrutiny of the land record reconciliation process. • Following the reconciliation of land records, the process of changing the legal status of “deemed forest” lands should be taken up. Deemed forest lands should be notified as Protected Forest that will allow for local management under the regulation of the Forest Department. Detailed prior public consultation must be carried out in every village where such change in legal classification is envisaged.
Possible loss of connectivity to the north Very little data are available on the movement of elephants in this region. Anecdotal evidence suggests that perhaps some elephants move between south-western Sakalesh- pur and areas to the north (Kemphole and Kabbinale RFs and beyond). To do this, how- ever, they have to cross the Mangalore-Hassan railway line, the Mangalore-Hassan highway (which is now extremely busy day and night), and also the Mangalore gas pipe- line. These would constitute significant obstructions to elephant movement. However, in the absence of a rigorous understanding of elephant movements, it is not possible to gauge the significance of these barriers.

constitute significant obstructions to elephant movement. However, in the absence of a rigorous understanding of elephant movements, it is not possible to gauge the significance of these barriers.
Specific Recommendation • We recommend that a detailed study be commissioned by the Project Elephant au- thorities on the movement of elephants northwards from south-western Sakaleshpur region, and if the above three structures appear to constitute significant barriers, ame- liorative measures may be seriously considered. Addressing Human Impacts Field investigations indicate that the human-elephant conflict in this region is significant but of relatively recent origin (see Figure 10). Villagers reported that elephants were small in number and largely confined to the densely forested tract. The straying of elephants into agricultural fields leading to crop damage and occasionally to human deaths is a phenomenon of the past decade or less.32 For instance, the total number of crop damage claims approved in villages adjoining the Bisle-Kagneri-Kanchankumari RFs during 2000- 2009 is 1473. Of these, only 227 claims came in the period 2000-2004, indicating that the crop damage problem has increased 6-fold in the second half of this 10-year period.

The likely reasons for elephants coming increasingly out of their ‘natural habitat’ are many and have been dealt with in the main chapter.

reased 6-fold in the second half of this 10-year period.

The likely reasons for elephants coming increasingly out of their ‘natural habitat’ are many and have been dealt with in the main chapter. In this region, clearly disturbance in the forest due to mini-hydel construction, which began a few years ago, is likely to be one major factor, especially if one notes that some of the highest claims have occurred in villages adjacent to Kagneri RF where the projects are located. But other factors such as increased attraction of agricultural crops as food also cannot be discounted. The measures to reduce the incidence of elephants damaging crops and causing harm to human life can be tackled in several ways. Clearly, prevention of disturbance in their natural habitat and ensuring connectivity in their paths is the first requirement,

32Discussions with villagers in Attihalli village, 6th March 2012.

69

Figure 10: Although elephant-human conflicts in the Sakaleshpur region of western Hassan Division have increased in the recent past, they are not as intense as in the areas further east [Source: data on claims provided by KFD, compiled by C.M. Bipin; map by ATREE Eco-informatics Lab & NCF GIS Cell]

increased in the recent past, they are not as intense as in the areas further east [Source: data on claims provided by KFD, compiled by C.M. Bipin; map by ATREE Eco-informatics Lab & NCF GIS Cell]

70 which has been addressed in the previous section. Two other approaches are discussed here: keeping elephants out, and purchase of private land. Keeping elephants out The conventional methods of limiting human elephant conflict have been implemented to some extent in this region but the complexity and uncertainties surrounding forest- revenue boundaries (discussed in page 66 above) as well as the fact that this region is a high rainfall area, dramatically reduce the utility of EPTs in keeping out elephants. Specific Recommendation Increased investments can be considered along key habitation areas east of the Bisle and Kagneri RFs in terms of non-lethal electric fencing. Gram Panchayats may be entrusted with the task of (and funds for) carrying out community fencing and responsibility and accountability for maintenance of these barriers. Purchase of agricultural land and human resettlement An extreme measure that is already being discussed is the purchase of agricultural land and the resettlement of villagers away from this region.

Purchase of agricultural land and human resettlement An extreme measure that is already being discussed is the purchase of agricultural land and the resettlement of villagers away from this region. We address this possible solution here because a proposal has been received by the Government of Karnataka from some farmers in the south-western Sakaleshpur region wherein they have offered their private- ly owned land to government for expanding the elephant corridor (as per letter received by the KETF from Sri Atthihalli Devraj, 31 March 2012, and files with the Hassan Forest Division). The key features of the proposal are:

1. A total of 416 farmers have ‘offered’ land amounting to a total of ~700 hectares (about 1750 acres).
2. The farmers are seeking a compensation of about Rs. 15 lakhs/acre for this land.
3. Some of these farmers are promising that they will also vacate all encroached lands in their possession along with these private lands.
4. These lands are located in a cluster of 5 villages in the southern portion of the case study region (which has 10 villages), adjoining Bisle State Forest and Bisle RF Exten- sion (see Figure 11). We scrutinized this proposal with due care, and have the following observations: The contribution of this land purchase to elephant conservation would be small for the following reasons: i) The area being offered is only partial: The total land offered for to the government for purchase is 700 hectares in a region where total official private landholding is 2565 ha plus unofficially held land is 1870ha.

red is only partial: The total land offered for to the government for purchase is 700 hectares in a region where total official private landholding is 2565 ha plus unofficially held land is 1870ha. Even if some unofficially held land is vacated in the process, the total land so obtained would be less than one-third of the agricultural holdings in the area, and would be clustered in the southern parts. ii) The area being offered is fragmented: As the map in Figure 11 shows, the parcels of land being offered are scattered across the landscape, while several other parcels

71 are not being offered. Thus, purchase of this scattered set of parcels will not lead to any addition of contiguous elephant habitat.

Figure 11: Map showing lands in southwestern Sakaleshpur, which farmers have consented to sell (yel- low) for expanding elephant habitat. Areas where farmers have not consented to sell are shown in pink. Map provided by Hassan Division, KFD.

Sakaleshpur, which farmers have consented to sell (yel- low) for expanding elephant habitat. Areas where farmers have not consented to sell are shown in pink. Map provided by Hassan Division, KFD.

72 iii) The elephant habitat is already intact: As the maps above show, there is already very substantial contiguous forested habitat to the west of these villages, including the Bisle-Kagneri RFs as well as other RFs in adjoining Mangalore division. It is not certain whether the elephant movement is primarily in the south-north direction, but even if this is so, the ‘width’ of the elephant habitat is typically 5 km in just the up-ghat side (Sakaleshpur), not including additional habitat down-ghat (Manga- lore side), and it runs from Pushpagiri in the south till the Mangalore-Hassan highway in the north. There is no obvious need for widening this habitat/corridor (see Figure 5). iv) The quality of the habitat will be limited: Abandoned agricultural fields and coffee plantations will provide limited food resources for elephants. One of the reasons elephants enter agricultural lands today is because they provide a nutritious and easy source of food. This will no longer be the case once agriculture is abandoned. Reduction in elephant impacts on society would be small because: i) Purchase of some portion of private land will still leave a significant human popu- lation (possibly more than 50% of the current population) and agricultural activity in the region.

l because: i) Purchase of some portion of private land will still leave a significant human popu- lation (possibly more than 50% of the current population) and agricultural activity in the region.
ii) Furthermore, purchase of land does not necessarily mean that the sellers will all leave the region. If they continue to stay, danger to their lives will continue, and the raiding of crops on remaining agricultural lands will continue. Economic feasibility and efficacy i) The cost is exorbitant: Purchase of 700 ha (nearly 1,750 acres) at Rs 15 lakhs per acre will require the government to spend a total of over Rs 260 crores. The current budget of Project Elephant in Karnataka is less than Rs 3 crores per year. Funds are simply unavailable for the proposed exercise. Most important, the benefits from this exercise will be a slightly increased habitat for ~20 elephants. This amounts to spending ~Rs 13 crores per elephant for a slight improvement of its habitat. Democratic governance and social justice would not be served because: i) Absence of full village rehabilitation: The national R&R policy states that villages must be rehabilitated as a whole, and this must be done after obtaining informed consent of the villagers. In this case, consent of all villagers has not been obtained, nor is it likely to be obtained. ii) Needs of the neediest: Sale of land only benefits the land owner. However, a signifi- cant population of landless labourers or marginal farmers depends on these pri- vate lands for employment.

ii) Needs of the neediest: Sale of land only benefits the land owner. However, a signifi- cant population of landless labourers or marginal farmers depends on these pri- vate lands for employment. There is no mechanism for compensating those who would lose wage labour opportunities due to such land purchase. Providing such a mechanism would further increase the cost of this proposal. Specific Recommendation In light of the above, we strongly recommend against spending public money on this proposal to purchase private land, an action that will have little positive impact on ele-

73 phant conservation, reduce elephant-human conflicts only slightly, and come at a very high cost to the treasury, all for a small population of elephants which is disturbed by other factors.
Summary The south-western region of Sakaleshpur taluk exemplifies the situation of small popula- tion of elephants residing in a medium-sized habitat, facing significant disturbance due to developmental activities such as mini-hydel projects and possibly loss of connectivity due to highway/railway line and pipelines. Elephants may leave forests perhaps due to such disturbances, but may also raid crops for their food value per se. Given the relatively small size of the elephant population, co-existence is the only solution. Such co-existence will require a serious regulation of developmental activities that today seriously com- promise the integrity of elephant habitats.

t population, co-existence is the only solution. Such co-existence will require a serious regulation of developmental activities that today seriously com- promise the integrity of elephant habitats. It would also require understanding elephant movements better and seeing whether and how connectivity lost due to highways and railway lines can be restored. Around key settlements, it may help to strengthen barriers around agricultural areas, especially if done through the involvement of local communi- ties. Other than these steps, additional measures to address cross-cutting problems such as electrocution of elephants must also be part of the package in such regions. However, measures involving wholesale purchase of agricultural land are neither necessary for elephant conservation, nor will they solve the problem of crop raiding and human deaths due to elephants.
3.5.4 Alur-Arkalgud: coexistence or elephant removal? The major elephant-human conflict zone in Hassan district, and indeed in Karnataka, is the area at the junction of Alur, Arkalgud and Sakaleshpur taluks of Hassan district and Somwarpet taluk of Kodagu district. The Elephant Task Force carried out a field visit in this area, heard and received petitions from the residents, held discussions with forest officials, studied secondary data, and took into consideration all studies up to now on this problem. We present here a detailed analysis of this problem, and recommendations.

scussions with forest officials, studied secondary data, and took into consideration all studies up to now on this problem. We present here a detailed analysis of this problem, and recommendations.
Site definition and characteristics This elephant-human conflict area has been referred to by different names at different points in time. At the onset of the elephant problem in the 1980s, it was referred to as ‘Kattepura area’, which referred to the tiny Kattepura RF to the south of Hemavathi reservoir, but also included the equally tiny Doddabetta RF to the north of the reservoir (see Figure 13). As the elephant problem grew, it began to be referred to as the Alur ele- phant problem, and eventually as ‘Hassan elephants’. However, this last label is mislead- ing, because, as explained in the previous section and based on field observations, there are at least two distinct populations of elephants in Hassan district: one on the western fringe (western Sakaleshpur) along the forests of the Western Ghats, and the second in the predominantly human-dominated Alur and Arkalgud taluks in Hassan and Kodagu districts, respectively. Here we refer to the latter population whose approximate range is given in the blue box in Figure 12.

inantly human-dominated Alur and Arkalgud taluks in Hassan and Kodagu districts, respectively. Here we refer to the latter population whose approximate range is given in the blue box in Figure 12.

74

Although the Alur elephants range beyond just Alur taluk, one may get an idea of the overall geography of the region by looking at data for Alur taluk. Eco-climatically, Alur lies in the so-called transition zone between the hilly (Malenad) region and the

Figure 12: Forest cover (including social forestry plantations) in the Alur area shows that <5% of its area has forest cover, which is scattered in small patches across the area with no connectivity. Box denotes very approximate area of the “Alur elephant” problem. Kattepura RF Doddabetta RF

75 eastern plains, with average annual rainfall of ~930mm and a flat to mildly undulating terrain. The pattern of land use in Alur taluk as per official records is given in Table 6. It shows that currently hardly 1% (4.8 sq. km) of the area is under notified forests. The major portion of the land is under cultivation, which is dominated by food crops (>16,000 ha) but also contains significant area under coffee (~5,000 ha). Table 6: Land use in Alur taluk, Hassan district Land use details Area (ha) Proportion Area (%) Total Geographical Area 40,265 100% Forests 487 1% Net Sown Area 21,643 54% Cultivable waste, pastures& misc.

n Alur taluk, Hassan district Land use details Area (ha) Proportion Area (%) Total Geographical Area 40,265 100% Forests 487 1% Net Sown Area 21,643 54% Cultivable waste, pastures& misc. trees 5,886 15% Fallow 3,934 10% Area not available for cultivation 8,315 21% Source: Hassan District at a Glance 2009-10

The population of Alur taluk was ~86,000 in 2001 and, thus, the current population densi- ty of this region is over 200 people/sq. km, much higher than the Malenad region. The vast majority of agricultural holdings are small or marginal in size (≤2 ha). In brief, this is a densely populated region with minuscule forest area and majority of land under culti- vation, with cropland interspersed with coffee plantations on the hillocks, by mostly small and marginal farmers. Current elephant population An attempt was made to estimate the elephant population in Alur. As this is a small and widely scattered population the standard methods of estimating populations will not yield useful results. So an alternate approach was used. All villages were systematically monitored by selecting villagers who were knowledgeable about elephant use of areas around their villages. These people called the Forest Department where registers were maintained in each Range to record all reports of elephants. On the dates when popula- tion estimation was carried out, teams were sent to all locations where elephants were reported.

egisters were maintained in each Range to record all reports of elephants. On the dates when popula- tion estimation was carried out, teams were sent to all locations where elephants were reported. This team tracked the elephants and recorded the number of elephants present as well as the age-sex composition of the elephant groups whenever they were visible33.

This effort revealed that there was a minimum of 26 elephants in the area. Of 25 animals actually observed and classified across 8 social units (including 2 solitary indi- viduals), there were 6 adult males, 8 adult females, 4 sub-adults (1 male, 3 female), 6 juveniles (3 male, 3 female) and one calf (< 1 year old)33. Another approach of population estimation using genetic (DNA) sampling (for individual identification) is also underway at Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research at Bangalore.

33Srinivasaiah, N.M. & Sinha, A. 2012. Elephant Refugees: Rapid Assessment of the Status of Elephants in the Conflict-Ridden Areas of Hassan. National Institute of Advanced Studies, unpublished report.

76