16 December 2024 02:40 am Views - 692
Sri Lanka currently faces a critical gap in policy direction regarding the management of Human-Elephant Conflict (Source: https://web.facebook.com/share/p/1Apn8b2GJq)
|
Proponents of the CAP believe that managing elephant numbers can reduce conflicts since elephants now inhabit modified environments In Sri Lanka, traditional cultural values often celebrate elephants as symbols of heritage and spirituality |
In Sri Lanka, humans and elephants are finding themselves closer than ever before, sharing land in ways that are often dangerous and costly. As settlement expansions overlap with the areas where elephants have roamed for centuries, elephants wander into villages and fields looking for food and water. This leads to damaged crops, destroyed property, and, in the worst cases, injuries or even loss of life on both sides. For communities, it’s a struggle to protect their livelihoods, and for elephants, it’s a fight for survival.
This growing tension has sparked national discussions about how to protect both communities and elephants, raising complex questions that need immediate answers, and three major contested ideologies have emerged: Should we control the elephant population through a Census-Achievable Population (CAP) strategy, or should we leave nature to regulate itself? Should the country enhance habitats to support more elephants, or would this disrupt the ecosystem? Finally, can people and elephants truly coexist, or should they be separated by clear boundaries?
This article explores these fundamental yet important questions behind Sri Lanka’s human-elephant conflict: Should we control elephant numbers, expand their habitats, or find ways to live sharing the same landscape?
Is CAP Ethical or Essential?
|
The challenges of coexistence reflect the realities of daily life in HEC zones (Source: Captured by Author)
|
Imagine a world where we carefully manage elephant populations to prevent conflicts with humans. This is the idea behind implementing a Census-Achievable Population (CAP). Proponents of the CAP believe that managing elephant numbers can reduce conflicts since elephants now inhabit modified environments. Opponents, however, argue it’s “unnatural” to control elephant populations, saying, “we should let nature decide their population.”
In Botswana, President Masisi lifted a hunting ban in 2019, responding to pressure from communities. He emphasised, “Hunting elephants is vital to the country as an important means to keep them in check.” In Zimbabwe, Tinashe Farawo from the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Authority voices concerns, noting, “We are overpopulated when it comes to elephants in this country.” Although population control plans are still “in formative stages,” culling is legally permitted. The Centre for Natural Resource Governance (CNRG) disagrees, warning that “culling will eventually lead to the extinction of these elephants and soon we will be forced to travel to other countries just to see an elephant.”
The challenges of Imposing a CAP or population control reflect broader societal dynamics. For instance, in Sri Lanka, traditional cultural values often celebrate elephants as symbols of heritage and spirituality. As a result, discussions around CAP reveal a complex intersection of conservation needs and cultural identity, making the issue both sensitive and contentious.
Can Carrying Capacity Solve the Problem?
According to conservation experts as expressed at different forums, “restriction of elephants to protected areas without a corresponding increase in the areas’ carrying capacities causes habitat degradation and eventually the decline and extinction of those elephant populations.” Also, he argues that growing crops for elephants in protected areas isn’t practical, especially during the dry season. Even with irrigation, other animals would eat most of it, causing further conflict. Plus, elephants would consume crops before they mature, reducing yields.
“Elephants are coming for food and water because forests do not have enough food for them. If they have, they will not come to our lands.” This is one farmer’s perspective on the issue.
The discussion on improving elephant habitats to mitigate HEC in Sri Lanka is ongoing. Some experts believe expanding habitats can reduce encounters by providing elephants with more space and resources. However, others are concerned about potential negative effects on nearby ecosystems and doubt the effectiveness. Finding a balance between conservation needs and practical implementation remains a challenge for policymakers.
Is it better for Sri Lanka to coexist or separate?
The concept of coexistence is grounded in the belief that empathy and understanding can bridge the gap between human and wildlife needs. Wildlife biologist Dr. Lucy K. Hellen has stated, “Humans and elephants can coexist if we embrace our roles as stewards of the earth, fostering an environment that nurtures both species.”
The perspectives on coexistence are varied; many communities express hope for coexistence, yet they also highlight the need for proactive measures to mitigate conflict. One villager stated, “We want to coexist, but we need support to protect our crops and our families.” The challenges of coexistence reflect the realities of daily life in HEC zones. “It is hard to cherish a creature when it destroys your livelihood” one villager lamented. This creates a complex challenge for decision makers, fueling policy dilemmas in Human-Elephant Conflict (HEC) management. These opposing views shape differing priorities, complicating resource allocation and strategic planning in pursuit of effective conflict solutions.
Initiative by Town and Country Planning Undergraduates
A team of undergraduate students from the Bachelor of Science in Town and Country Planning program at the Department of Town and Country Planning, University of Moratuwa, supported by faculty staff, conducted an in-depth, national-level exploration of Sri Lanka’s human-elephant conflict. Using a scientific approach and multiple sources of data, the team ultimately proposed revisions to the National Physical Planning Policy (NPPP) for 2050.
The plan demonstrates four planning scenarios for National Physical Policy 2050 by incorporating selected contesting ideologies. It is based on the study carried out by the Third Year Undergraduates of the Bachelor of Science in Town and Country Planning program at the Department of Town and Country Planning, University of Moratuwa.
The study revealed the significant influence of contesting ideological differences in shaping policy directives. By formulating four distinct scenarios based on these competing ideologies, the team demonstrated how each scenario led to vastly different policy and planning outcomes. Beyond their findings, the study serves as a striking example of how national planning policies are vulnerable to constant changes and revisions in the absence of a unified national consensus on addressing critical issues.
What Sri Lanka really need now?
Sri Lanka currently faces a critical gap in policy direction regarding the management of Human-Elephant Conflict (HEC) due to these contesting ideologies. With appropriate revisions The National Physical Planning Policy (NPPP) will strengthen its potential to integrate various sectoral policies and plans which is crucial in managing the conflict. The absence of a cohesive guiding framework extends to other related policies, creating an environment where decision-makers struggle to find common ground.
The root of this dilemma primarily clinging to these own ideologies, hindering the formation of a unified consensus on the country’s true needs. To address this, experts in respective subject areas, all agencies and stakeholders should initiate a national dialog come to a consensus for HEC management. While various ideologies clash, the real question is: who will step up to break this stalemate? Watching from the sidelines as tensions rise is no longer an option.
The time for strategic, inclusive dialogue is now, before it’s too late.
Acknowledgement:
Authors wish to acknowledge the support and involvement of Third Year Undergraduates of the Bachelor of Science in Town and Country Planning program at the Department of Town and Country Planning, University of Moratuwa for conducting the study that set the basis for the ideas presented in the article. Further authors acknowledge all the experts, agencies and communities their supported in numerous ways during the process.
Authors:
Ms. Upeksha Madhubhashini (madhubashiniwmu.21@uom.lk )
Ms. Isimini Jayasinghe 1(jayasinghejaia.21@uom.lk )
Ms. Sanuri Welathantri1( welathantrisu.21@uom.lk )
Dr. Chathura Kovida De Silva (chthr.desilva@gmail.com)
Undergraduate, Bachelor of Science in Town and Country Planning program at the Department of Town and Country Planning, University of Moratuwa
Senior Lecturer Department of Town and Country Planning, University of Moratuwa