Investigation and review of Human Elephant Conflict in the Bardia – Katarniaghat Corridor, Nepal

Human Elephant Conflict
WWF Nepal Program 1
Michael Cordingley
Level 2 - Undergraduate
Wildlife Conservation B.Sc (Hons)
Liverpool John Moores University
England
Email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tel: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
WWF Nepal Program
PO Box: 7760, Baluwatar
Kathmandu, Nepal
Tel: 997-(1)-4434820, 4434970, 4410942
Fax: 997-(1)-4438148
Email: Info@wwfnepal.org
www.wwfnepal.org
Investigation and review of Human Elephant Conflict in the Bardia
– Katarniaghat Corridor, Nepal

WWF Nepal Program 2
Contents
Cover sheet - - - - - - - - Page 1
Contents page - - - - - - - - Page 2
Abbreviations and Acronyms - - - - - - Page 2
Introduction - - - - - - - - Page 3
Background - - - - - - - - Page(s) 3 - 4
Study Site - - - - - - - - Page(s) 4 - 6
Occurrence of HEC - - - - - - - Page(s) 7 - 13
Dirty Mapping of HEC in the Khata Corridor - - - - Page(s) 14 – 18
Enumeration of HEC - - - - - - - Page(s) 19 – 21
Traditional Means of Conflict Alleviation within the Khata Corridor - - Page(s) 22 - 24
Refining Traditional Conflict Alleviation Techniques - - - - Page(s) 25 - 30
Final Thought - - - - - - - - Page 31
References - - - - - - - - Page 32
Abbreviations and Acronyms
AfESG - African Elephant Specialist Group
AsESG - Asian Elephant Specialist Group
AREAS - Asian Rhino and Elephant Action Strategy
BCP - Bardia Conservation Program (Formally the KMTNC)
BDS - Business Development Service
BICP - Bardia Integrated Conservation Program
BNP - Bardia National Park
BZ - Buffer Zone
BZMC - Buffer Zone Management Committee
CFCC - Community Forest Coordination Committee
CFUG - Community Forest User Group
CPR - Common Pool Resource
DDC - District Development Committee
EPDT - Elephant Pepper Development Trust
HEC - Human Elephant Conflict
HQ - Headquarters
HWC - Human Wildlife Conflict
ITCZ - Inter Tropical Convergence Zone
IUCN - International Conservation Union
KMTNC- King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation
KWS - Katarniaghat Wildlife Sanctuary
NP - National Park
NTFP - Non-Timber Forest Products
PAC - Problem Animal Control
PPP - Parks and People Program
SES - Scientific Exploration Society
TAL - Terai Arc Landscape
UC - User Committee
VDC - Village Development Committee
WCS - Wildlife Conservation Society
WWF - World Wide Fund for Nature

WWF Nepal Program 3
Introduction
Human Elephant Conflict (HEC) is increasing with the increasing conversion of elephant habitat
for human use. This increased conflict is becoming a major stumbling block in the conservation
of elephants (IUCN). It is important to understand that as long as humans and elephants share the
same landscape, HEC can never be eliminated, only reduced. Elephants tend to have large home
ranges with traditional migration routes. When these are reduced and disrupted by encroachment,
elephants lose their ability to move with seasonal rains to seasonal feeding grounds, resulting in
pocketed herds, which some experts believe raid crops out of necessity for survival and that herds
living in areas with sufficient natural resources will not raid crops even if they had the chance to
do so. Furthermore, if forest fragmentation continues, resident elephants become squeezed into an
ever decreasing forest patch, thereby increasing their density beyond the carry capacity, placing
strain on the available resources (Chong & Norwana, 2005). If there are insufficient natural
resources and elephants are dependant on raiding, then no matter what types, or combinations, of
mitigation measures are employed they will, being intelligent and resourceful animals, overcome
these mitigation measures, so purely passive (short-term) protection will not work (Nelson et al,
2003). If a lasting solution is to be found habitat loss (Montanye, 2003), as the underlying cause
of HEC, (Desai 2002) must be addressed, and long-term measures taken to reconnect degraded
habitat to a suitable tract of forest. It is only when there exists an alternative to crop raiding that
the mitigation measures will be effective (Chong & Norwana, 2005).
This report aims to investigate the significance of HEC within the Khata corridor that links
Bardia National Park in Nepal to the Katarniaghat Wildlife Reserve in India. To achieve this it
aims to review the current HEC alleviation and mitigation efforts, offering possible combinations
of methods for refining traditional alleviation techniques. From secondary data, the report hopes
to draw on any patters of HEC within the corridor, highlighting any trends of when incidents
occur and the areas most frequently and severely affected by HEC. The report draws upon
primary data obtained through interviews, secondary data from compensation and community
forest schemes and looks at methods employed in other elephant regions from around the world.
Background
The status of the elephants in Bardia National Park (BNP) witnessed an increase in population
after 1994. Formally (pre-1994) these elephants were temporary migrants to the park, spending
three to four months (June – November) in the area, before returning to India. The only 2 known
resident elephants prior to 1994 were 2 bulls, first recorded in 1987. In November of 1994 31
elephants were witnessed crossing the Kauriala River near to the village of Jagatpur. According
to locals a group of elephants (n=17) were witnessed along the banks of the Kauriala River early
one morning in November and later that day another group (n=14) were also seen crossing the
river in the same place (Velde, 1997) 1
.
For many years these elephants are believed to have migrated between 4 protected areas2
making
their way along the (now unused) elephant walk of the Chure foothill forests (Byrne, 1991) taking
them from the forest of Uttar Pradesh in India, to the connecting forest of the Kanchanpur,
Kailali, and Bardia districts of Nepal. Elephants used to be seen twice a year, during June -August
as they journeyed towards BNP, and again in October – November journeying back towards the
1
Velde, P. F. 1997. Sourced from the WWF Office, Katmandu, Nepal
2
Corbett National Park (India), Dudhawa National Park (India), Sukla Phanta Wildlife Reserve (Nepal)
and Bardia National Park (Nepal)

WWF Nepal Program 4
jungle in the Kanchanpur district. These routes are believed to have been used for the last time in
1994, due to increasing degradation elephants experience difficulties migrating in 1994 and have
come to reside in BNP. During their migration too and from BNP, elephants rarely stopped to raid
crops, instead walking non stop, covering the distance between the Sukla Phanta Wildlife Reserve
and Bardia National Park in 2 days (Velde, 1997).
Bardia’s Elephant Population at the turn of the century (2000 AD)
At the turn of the century the Scientific Exploration Society (SES) carried out expeditions to gain
elephant census information for BNP. Prof. Adrian Lister, of University Collage London, has
provided valuable information on this elephant population.
In his report on the SES expedition to BNP in 2001 Lister recalls 8 male bulls that their team had
recorded in previous years, as well documenting the discovery of a further 5 bulls, and recording
1 loss. These discoveries brought the male bull population for 2001 to approximately 12. At the
time of their visit the SES estimated a minimum population of 53-59 elephants, citing Raj Kumar
as approximating the population at between 50 and 70. Lister (2001) cites Gun (naturalist) as
indicating that, on the 24th
of February 1999, he saw 30 elephants at the Tiger Mountain Lodge,
while at the same time, another 30 were seen at the Tented Camp 19km away, a total of 60, Gun
believing there to be a population of 67 – 70 in total (Lister, 2001).
From these approximations Lister uses a reasonable estimator of the elephant population as being
about 70, of which (in 2001) approximately 12 were males, leaving 58 females and their young.
Studies have shown that the female herds typically comprise just fewer than 50% adult females
and just over 50% their offspring (sub-adults, juveniles and calves). In this (2001) case there were
roughly 25-30 adult females, and an adult male/female ration of 1:2 or 1:3. Since elephants do not
form pairs but the bulls mate opportunistically, this is a healthy figure (Lister 2001). The SES
sited a herd of between 20 and 25 individuals on the 7th
of March 2001 which included
approximately 3 animals in the age category of 0-2 years. Since there were about 6 adult females
in this herd, this indicates a calving rate of around 1 every four years per female – the textbook
figure. A similar figure is likely from the sighting of a herd of 39 elephants with 5-6 very small
calves or young juveniles in October 2000. Given the estimate of 25-30 adult females, this again
gives a calving rate of about one calf every 4-5 years per female suggesting that the population,
though small, is reproducing healthy (Lister, 2001).
From our own field interviews with locals suffering from HEC (on the 25th
of November 2006)
locals reported that a herd of approximately 22 elephants passed through their fields (Dhanaura
UC, Dhodhari VDC) in October 2006. Of this approximate 22, 4 were said to be calves or young
juveniles. Although only rough approximations of numbers these figures to some extent go
towards supporting Lister’s estimated calving rate.
Study Site
Bardia – Katarniaghat Corridor,
The Bardia – Katarniaghat Corridor, also known as the Khata corridor, is a mosaic landscape
composing primary and secondary hard wood forest, sal forest, grassland, scrubland, alluvial
marine beds, and cultivated land. It connects Bardia National Park in Nepal with the Katarniaghat
Wildlife Sanctuary (KWS) in India. The corridor is exclusively located in Nepal and is
surrounded by, and made up of, 5 VDCs: Baganaha, Dhodari, Sivpur, Suryapatuwa and
Thakurdwara. Of these VDCs Dhodhari and Suryapatuwa VDCs contain the majority of the 2

WWF Nepal Program 5
forest corridors that extend southwards from BNP into India. Flagship species like the one horned
rhinoceroses (Rhinoceros unicornis), Bengal Tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) and Asian Elephant
(Elephas maximus) are known to use this corridor to move between Bardia and Katarniaghat. Of
the 2 forest corridors, 1 runs along the eastern boundaries of these 2 VDCs and the second along
their western boundaries. Human Wildlife Conflict (HWC) is likely to occur more frequently
along the forest – cultivation interface of the narrower western corridor due to the corridors
smaller size. Because of this the site was selected as the study site (Map 1), with the eastern forest
corridor falling outside the scope of this report.
BNP, Nepal, was first established as a Wildlife Reserve in 1976 and was made into a National
Park (NP) in 1988. Covering an area of 968sq.km, with a buffer zone area of 327sq.km, it is the
largest NP lying in the low land of southern Terai. The park has a diverse habitat with wide
diversity of flora and fauna and is home to such flagship and umbrella species as the one horned
rhinoceroses (Rhinoceros unicornis), Bengal Tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) and Asian Elephant
(Elephas maximus). The park is flanked by two river systems; Karnali-Geruwa towards the south-
west and Babai towards the south-east. The landscape adjacent to BNP, towards the south is
occupied by continuous forest patches that extend to the Indian border, which are seasonally used
as migratory routes by several mammals (Kharel, undated)3
.
Katarniyaghat Wildlife Reserve (KWR), India, is situated on the Indo-Nepalese border in the
Bahraich district of Uttar Pradesh, India. It represents the Terai-Bhabhar Bio-Geographic sub-
division of the upper Gangetic plains. Owing to great vegetation diversity the area is a mosaic of
diverse habitat. The reserve occupies the centre land between other two Protected Areas,
Dudhuwa NP towards the west and Bardia National Park to the north and is characterised by the
centre-landing habitat while migrating from Dudhuwa to BNP a Vice-versa, for rhinos and other
mammals as well (Kharel, undated).
Problems of the study site
The study area has suffered from habitat loss due to fragmentation, degradation, encroachment
and overgrazing with time. It has witnessed a rapid increase in human habitation and cattle
grazing, enhancing biotic pressure on the forest. The loss of continuous forest corridors in these
regions are due to excessive anthropogenic influences (KMTNC, 2001) hindering the
movement/migration especially for mega fauna within the BNP and KWS. Poaching and
harassment to the wildlife are a menace and conflict between the human and wildlife is increasing
due to deterioration in habitat quality along the corridor areas. The fast growing population, as a
result of Immigration and birth rate (growth rate, 2001 3.8% (NIDI, 2006)), is highly dependant
on forest for daily needs of fodder and fuel wood and illegal tree felling and collection of Non
Timber Forest Products (NTFP) is common (Kharel, undated).
3
Kharel, Undated, Sourced from the WWF Office, Kathmandu, Nepal

WWF Nepal Program 6
Map 1. Study site, western forest corridor within the Khata corridor

WWF Nepal Program 7
Occurrence of Human Elephant Conflict
Introduction
It is not possible to address the problem of HEC effectively without information about what
it is that the elephants are damaging and where and when these incidents occur (IUCN).
Data on Human Wildlife Conflict (HWC) within the Khata corridor, and around BNP, consists of
those incidents that have been reported to a local authority by the community member/members
affected. These local authorities include the Buffer Zone Management Committee (BZMC) and
Community Forest Co-ordination Committee (CFCC). To try and identify when HEC incidents
occur most frequently within the Khata corridor, data sets, on HWC incidents, were collected
from both the BZMC and the CFCC.
Data sets constructed from incidents reported to an authority could potentially give a general
impression of problem elephant activity and allow for comparisons to be made. However, there is
little distinction between ‘visits’ and ‘raids’ by elephants; visits (Osborn 1998, as cited by IUCN)
are cases where elephants transverse the field and do little damage, what damage there is may be
from trampling only, whereas ‘raids’ are cases where crops were fed upon (IUCN).
Data Analysis
Data sets collected from the BZMC are a collaboration of ‘Applications for Compensation’
(Applications submitted by community members to the BZMC for compensation from damages
caused by HWC), apposed to data collected through deliberate field research efforts. Data sets
collected from the CFCC are of incidents of HWC recorded by Samjhana Community Forest
User Group in Laksmipur, which falls outside the BNP Buffer Zone (BZ).
BZMC Data Set
As a result of these data sets being a collaboration of ‘Applications for Compensation’, submitted
by community members, they are susceptible to false claims and other biases. Data includes 6
years of tiger incidents (2000–2005) and approximately 2 years of elephant incidents (2005–
2006) with leopard and rhino incidents mixed into both. From these data sets only applications for
damaged cause by elephants were examined. Applications against other species located within the
elephant data set, leopards (n=11), tigers (n=3), rhinos (n=2) and wild boar (n=1), were removed
leaving only incidents involving elephants (n=203). For the analysis of this report an application
for compensation is taken to represent one incident of HEC. Following on from this logic, this
would advocate that there are no false claims and that the number of applications is proportionate
between areas, despite inherent bias (i.e. Distance to travel in order to submit a claim, amount of
damage etc). For each application the BZMC recorded; UC name, Date, Type of Incident,
Applicants Name, Compensation Amount and Remarks. For the examination of this report UC
name, Date and Type of Incidents were kept, with the Applicants Name, Compensation Amounts
and Remarks being removed due to inconsistencies and lack of relevance.
Applications were classed according to the UC (User Community) the applicant came from; to
get a representation conflict distribution over time applications needed to be ranked according to
date. Dates had been recorded in Nepalese script, using dates according to the Bikram Sambat
(BS) calendar. In order got the date to be analysed more effectively dates were translated into
English script, and, in absence of translation software, manually translated form BS to AD with
the aid of a dual dated calendar.

WWF Nepal Program 8
To identify when incidents of HEC occurred the data was ranked according to date and classed
according to number of applications submitted in each calendar month (Table 1), and further
divided to show the number of each type of incident per calendar month (Table 2); graphically
represented in a Figure 2. As data collection was ongoing it would be misrepresentative to
compare total number of incidents for both years, as 2006 data was only available up to and
including September. Therefore data from January – September had their totals calculated for
each year so the two years could be fairly compared.
Results
From Table 1 we can see a considerable difference in the number of submitted applications
between the two years for the months of January to September, an 88% decrease (n=120) from
2005 to 2006; a possible indication that elephant mitigation efforts are working or that people
have simply stopped submitting applications, resulting in fewer incidents being recorded.
The lower number of applications submitted in 2006 (n=16) makes deriving any possible trends
about the frequencies of HEC incidents difficult, however the larger number of applications
submitted in 2005 means that any potential trends would be more identifiable. For the whole of
2005 (Jan – Dec), 64.3% of applications were submitted against house damage, 29.3% against
crop damage, with both human injury and human death each accounting for 3.2% of applications.
From Table 1 we can see that of the total 185 applications submitted in 2005, 56 (31%) were
made in March, 48 (24%) were submitted in August and 33 (18%) were submitted in November,
with the remaining 51 applications (27%) being split between the remaining 9 months.
Comparing Tables 1, 2, and Figure 2, we see that of the majority of the 56 applications submitted
in March 2005, 87.5%, (n=49), were applications for compensation against house damage,
leaving 11% (n=6) against crop damage and 1.5% (n=1) against human death.
Following Figure 2 we see that house damage in 2005 continued at a lower rate for the following
4 months, showing consecutive increase through August (n=5), September (n=7) and October
(n=10) before reaching its second peak in November (n=29).
Crop damage occurred rarely during the first half of 2005, with only 6 incidents occurring in
March, possibly as a result of trampling during the high number of house damage incidents for
this month. After this, crop damage reoccurs at its peak in August (n=42) only to fade out to
nothing during September (n=5) and October (n=1).
In 2005 there were a total of 6 applications against human death and another 6 for human injuries.
Of the 6 applications against human deaths, 1 was submitted during March, when incidents of
house damage was high, 2 were submitted during May, and the remaining 3 were submitted
consecutively in August, September and October when crop damage and house damage were both
high, with crop damage being at its peak. Of the 6 applications submitted against human injury, 1
was in February, 1 was in May and 4 were in November, the month where house damage
occurred second most frequently.

WWF Nepal Program 9
Results
Table 1. Number of applications for compensation made to the BZMC per calendar month, 2005-06
Month 2005 2006
January 1 1
February 1 4
March 56 0
April 2 0
May 9 3
June 4 1
July 2 6
August 48 0
September 13 1
October 12 NA
November 33 NA
December 4 NA
Total 185 16
Total Jan - Sept 136 16
Note:- NA* = Data Not Available
Table 2. Number of applications for compensation made to the BZMC, by type of incident, per calendar
month, 2005-06.
Human Injuries Human Deaths Crop Damage House Damage
Month 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006
January 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
February 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
March 0 0 1 0 6 0 49 0
April 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
May 1 0 2 0 0 1 6 2
June 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1
July 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 4
August 0 0 1 0 42 0 5 0
September 0 0 1 0 5 0 7 1
October 0 NA 1 NA 1 NA 10 NA
November 4 NA 0 NA 0 NA 29 NA
December 0 NA 0 NA 0 NA 4 NA
Total 6 2 6 0 54 2 119 12
Note:- NA* = Data Not Available

WWF Nepal Program 10
Figure1.ApplicationsforCompensationagainstincidentsofHEC,accordingtotypeofincident,
submittedtotheBZMCin2005-2006
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
January
Febuary
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
Febuary
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
20052006
Year/Month
NumberofApplicatios
HouseDamage
CropDamage
HumanDeaths
HumanInjuries

Discussion of the BZMC data
From looking at applications for compensation to identify trends in HEC incidents some patterns
have been drawn upon however large biases, inaccurate and inconsistent data that are dependant
on the complainant means this data may be heavily skewed and should be viewed with caution.
These show that for 2005 higher frequencies of application for compensation were submitted
against house damage in March and November, with higher frequencies of applications for
compensation against crop damage in August. The increased frequency of house damage in
March and November may be proportionate to compensation claims against other HEC incidents,
however may be bias to people being more likely to apply for compensation against house
damage as apposed to crop damage.
One strong bias is reflected in the low number of applications from the UC’s within the BZ on the
western side of the BNP, probably a product of the large distance required to travel to submit
them at the BZMC office at the park HQ in Thakadawra.
The inherent biases associated with the above data supports the justification for the need of
standardised method, and deliberate filed research effort, for enumerating incidents of
HEC as they occur.
CFCC data set
As mentioned, the dataset from the CFCC are recorded incidents of HWC made through a
deliberate effort by Samjhana CFUG members in Laksmipur. Because of these deliberate efforts
this data is potentially more accurate then that from the BZMC. Such datasets could be used to
make comparison of HWC between different areas but the lack of data from other areas prevents
this.
The data set runs from May 2004 to November 2006 and includes only incidents of crop damage.
Only incidents involving elephants (n=154) were examined with incidences involving other
species, rhino (n=5), being removed. Samjhana CFUG members recorded the Date of the
incident, Complainants name, Number and type of animal(s) involved, the area of land the
complainant owns, amount and type of crop damaged and the Time of the incident. Again, the
data set was translated into English from Nepali with dates being translated from the BS calendar
to the AD calendar, for the requirements of this report.
Results
From Figure 2, a product of Table 3, we can see that in 2004 and 2005 incidents of HEC occurred
most frequently during August and September, and that in 2006 the number of incidents peaked
in July (n=19). Trends in the frequency of HEC incidents are similar for 2004 and 2005, with
incidents occurring most frequently in August and the second highest frequency of incidents
occurring in September. Figure 2 also illustrates the times of the year when incidents of HEC are
rare. We see no recorded incidents between December 2004 and June 2005, with only 1 incident
occurring in July 2005 before the year’s peak in August. A similar trend occurs between
November 2005 and June 2006 during which only 3 incidents were recorded in February 2006.

Figure 2. Number of Recorded HEC Incidents for Samjhana CFUG - Laksmipur
2 2
0
26
21
5
3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1
25
15
2
0 0 0
3
0 0 0 0
19
0
7
6
12
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
2004 2005 2006
Year / Month
NumberofHECIncidents
Number of Recorded HEC Incidents

13
Table 3. Number of Recorded HEC Incidents for Samjhana CFUG–Laksmipur
Discussion
The CFCC data set provides a good example of how deliberate research efforts into enumerating
incidents of HEC can reflect trends. Although the data for the 3 years don’t show the same
consecutive trends, the average of all 3 years would suggest that, for the community of
Laksmipur, HEC incidents involving crop damage occurs mostly in the months of July, August
and September.
The lack of information about HEC incidents involving house damage, human injury and human
death leaves a lot of incidents unchecked and therefore results in the data set show less realistic
findings about the overall trends of HEC. For a better representation of the frequency of HEC
incidents information also needs to be collected on those types of incidents that have been
previously left out, giving a better representation of the realistic trends, as it is likely that
incidents of crop raiding will be highest during harvest time and incidences involving house
damage being more frequent after harvest time when grain and crops are stored.
Once such data has been collected over a period of 3 years or more a better idea of the
distribution of HEC incidents, in both time and space, will be better understood and
management strategies made accordingly.
2004 2005 2006
Jan NA 0 0
Feb NA 0 3
Mar NA 0 0
Apr 1 0 0
May 2 0 0
Jun 2 0 0
Jul 0 1 19
Aug 26 25 0
Sept 21 15 7
Oct 5 2 6
Nov 3 0 12
Dec 0 0 NA
Total 60 43 47
Average 7 4 4

14
HEC in the Khata Corridor
-Dirty Mapping-
Introduction:
In response to the incidences of HEC during October 2006 around the community of Dhanaura
(Dhodhari VDC), it was felt that dirty mapping was necessary to determine where HEC occurs
most frequently with greatest severity and that ‘vulnerable areas’, where gaps occurred in
machans lines, needed to be identified.
Method:
To determine the most frequently and severely hit areas interviews were conducted along the
western forest corridor (Map 2), in those communities which were felt to have been most affected
as identified by CFCC Sectary Krishna Pariyar and TAL Co-manager Tilak Dhakal.
These were;
VDC UC
(Dhodhari) Dhanaura
Laksmipur (Bhagaraiya)
Bhangaha
Khata
(Suryapatuwa) Kothiya,
Patharbojhi
Sonaha (Map 2)
Interviews used a set of basic questions to try and determine the time and severity of the last
(most recent) incident of HEC, the number and severity of incidents over the past year and the
opinions of the local people.
To identify gaps in the machan line, sweeps on foot and by bicycle were made along the forest
corridor. Machans had their location’s plotted using a GPS device (Garmin, GPS 12) to accuracy
of 10 meters or below (≤ 10 meter, ≤ 33 feet), which were superimposed onto a map of the area
(Map 3).
Potential sources of bias: Some community members were able to give more information on the
questions asked than others, so a fuller picture was established for some communities then others.
In some communities a group of people would gather and provided input into the questions
answered. However in some circumstances only 1 individual was interviewed and this
information was used under the heading for their particular community. Interviews were
conducted through a translator. In some situations it was necessary to translate out of the Nepali
sub dialect of Tharu, into Nepali and then into English for the benefit of this report. This
translation may have lead to such inherent bias as miss-translation or misinterpretation of words,
and a decreased understanding for the reason for the answers given.

15
Results
The results of the mapping suggest that the most affected areas, in 2006, were Laksmipur
(Bhagaraiya), Dhanaura and Sonaha. Table 6 shows the number of elephants involved in the most
recent incidents of HEC at the sites where interviews took place. With the approach of winter
months in Nepal, during the time when the interviews took place, it’s rational to assume that any
elephant migration or movement would be in a southerly direction, to warmer conditions, as they
follow the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ). To take this assumption into account Table 6
has been constructed with the most northerly community at the top and most southerly at the
bottom with the rest consecutively following suit.
The first possible identifiable trend lies with those incidents that occurred with between 10 and 13
elephants, during the months of August and September in Dandagaun, Sonaha and Kothiya, with
the difference in the numbers of elephants being accountable to miscounting in low light levels.
First, the number of elephants involved in each incident would indicate that, perhaps, all
3 incidences occurred with the same herd of elephants.
Secondly, in each of these incidences property was damaged, and was said to have been
witnessed being done by an individual tusker, and;
Thirdly, that the incidents occurred consecutively in time and in a southerly direction,
between Dandagaun and Sonaha, would also suggest the same herd. However,
discrepancy enters this trend with the incident that occurred earlier, at a more southerly
point, in Kothiya, suggesting that if the same herd of elephants were involved in each of
the incidents, including Kothiya, then the elephants either double backed or were chased
into Sonaha from Kothiya, or more likely that the incidents in Kothiya occurred after the
incident in Sonaha and that this discrepancy is a result of difficulties in recalling precise
dates of incidents.
A second possible identifiable trend is with the incidents which involved 18 elephants. All are
said to have occurred in the month of August at consecutive points (due south) staring in Khata
moving through to Bhangaha, Pandepur and final to Laksmipur.
From interviews a possible hypothesis can be derived about 1 possible route that this herd of 18
elephants took. It would seem rational that the elephants entered Khata, south of the highway,
from community forest in the west, with the elephants traveling due east. After entering Khata,
the elephants may have been chased back into the same community forest from which they
originally entered, or returned independently. From here they continued south, entering cultivated
land at Bhangaha. From interviews and first hand observations (foot prints) it appears likely that
the elephants, traveling east, having entered from the community forest to the west of Bhangaha,
transversed the cultivated land crossing into agricultural fields east of this point before heading
south, reentering the forest west of Pandepur, north of Laksmipur. Once in this forest incidents of
elephants entering agricultural land at Pandepur suggest they continued heading east, but were
chased back into the same forest above Laksmipur. From incidents that occurred in Laksmipur it
is likely that the same elephants entered their fields from the north, having their route cut off by
the community of Laksmipur which runs west – east. From foot prints at Laksmipur it is
attainable that the elephants took a path through the centre of Laksmipur’s fields, probably
preferring cover provided by the forest and grassland in the north east of the site to the less
vegetated and more populated site to the south east, before heading north back into the forest
from which they had entered (Map 2).

16
Map 2. Illustration of possible route that elephants took in August 2006

17
Map 3. GPS Locations of Machan across the study site

18
Table 4. Findings of the interviews conducted across the Khata corridor into the last incident of
HEC
Community Month of Number of No. of Properties Properties damaged This elephant
Name last Incident Elephants Damaged by a single elephant was a tusker
Dandagaun August 10-12. 5 Yes Yes
Patharbojhi September 22 0 NA NA
Sonaha September 13 1 Yes Yes
Kothia August 12 2 Yes Unknown
Khata August 18 1 Yes Yes
Bhangaha August 18 1 Yes Yes
Pandepur August 18 1 Yes Yes
Laksmipur August 18 0 NA NA
Dhanaura October 22 4 No NA
Discussion
As previously mentioned the findings of this research would suggest that for 2006 the areas most
severally affected by HEC were found to be Laksmipur, Dhanaura and Sonaha. The trend of male
elephants causing the majority of witnessed house and crop damage is supported by other studies.
These elephants may be dependant on crop raiding out of necessity, however Asian elephants are
attracted to feed on crops because they are more palatable, more nutritious and have lower
secondary defenses than wild browser plants (Sukumar 1990). Because they carry more
nutritional value the optimal foraging hypothesis justifies the taking the risks involved in crop
raiding for the higher pay offs in consumed energy.
Throughout the Khata Corridor it appears that the majority of HEC incidents occur when elephant
herds migrate. However the community Laksmipur appears to suffer from these same migrating
herds and from elephants that reside in India.
The result of the mapping showed that throughout the study site trenches, the use fire and noise to
scare elephants and machans are the most implemented alleviation methods. Despite none of
these techniques having been completely successful the reason for their continued employment is
due to their economic viability and traditionalness, not requiring any out side funding or
equipment. To bring in such ‘outside’ non-traditional techniques would probably meet with some
success at first, but would become unemployed as a result for the need of maintenance and the
need for outside funding and equipment. As a result it is the opinion of this paper that the
effectiveness of traditional techniques should be refined in an attempt to increase their
effectiveness.

19
Enumeration of HEC
It’s not possible to address the problem of HEC effectively without information about what it is
elephants are damaging and where and when these damage incidents occur (IUCN). Data on HEC
distribution, frequency and severity needs to be gathered in order to understand the causes and
scale of the problem (Desai, 2002). Attempts to build data sets from recording past incidents of
HEC could potentially project negative, unrepresentative, trends and patterns. Therefore incidents
need to be recorded and analysed in a uniform manner as they occur. In doing so a broad picture
of the key explanatory factors will allow for the development and implementation of effective,
site-specific solutions, mitigation and management plans (IUCN).
From the IUCNs’ and AfESG HEC data collection protocol, three sampling approaches have
emerged where damage incidents can be quantified on the basis of;
METHOD 1: number of “damage events” or elephant incidents reported to an authority
METHOD 2: actual losses to crops due to elephants (measured and quantified by an enumerator)
METHOD 3: perceived losses due to elephants (derived from interviews with farmers) (IUCN).
The IUCN’s present guidelines propose using a combination of these three sampling methods to
obtain primary data from fairly large areas of conflict. This involves reporting of the incident to a
trained and paid enumerator who then visits the site of the incident and interviews the affected
person as soon as possible after the occurrence of the problem. The enumerator makes their own
assessment of the incident but asks the affected person (complainant) to provide him with
retrospective extra details about the incident (IUCN).
To gather this information, some, or if possible all of the area concerned has to be surveyed. Due
to enumerators receiving standardised training, the data they will collect will be of
consistent quality and will therefore be reliable enough for summary and analysis. This
will mean that two things can be achieved: (1) comparisons between different areas
experiencing elephant problems will be valid and (2) management decisions on ‘problem
elephants’ can be made on the basis of good data and do not have to rely on guess work
(IUCN).
This approach yields good distribution and frequency information, allows adequate severity
assessment and also provides for some of the ‘social dimension’ of elephant problems to be
included. The practical advantages of this approach are that it involves local people, provides
employment and does not rely only on the complainant. It has the disadvantage that enumerators
have to be trained and engaged in paid employment, something which requires some
administration of finance and personnel. For the returns, however, it is a relatively inexpensive
scheme to set up and run (IUCN).
HEC Enumeration in Nepal / Bardia
If HEC is to be effectively managed information about HEC incidents is required, however
enumerations of a standard like that proposed in the IUCN’s and AfESG does not yet exist in
Nepal and it is felt that a more stable political situation is required before such a protocol could be
implemented.
A second way to implement HEC enumeration would be to do away with the need for trained
enumerators and to provide each UC, CFUG, or VDC with a standardised spreadsheet for
recording incidents of HEC, which could be collected and used for future research needs. This

20
method would be subject to all inherent bias which are not present with the method mentioned
above, but would provide good information into the frequency and distribution of HEC incidents,
with relatively little expense and effort on outside organisations, and allowing for sites to be
compared.
Improving compensation schemes through combining them with HEC Enumeration
Naturally, one of the first reactions to property being destroyed by elephants is a request for
compensation, especially when the animals are legally or effectively owned by the state.
Compensation schemes, almost without fail, have been unsuccessful. A major flaw from the
outset is that they attempt to address the effects, rather then the causes of the conflict and are
typically dogged by the same problems (Nelson et al, 2003) (BOX 1). One of the major problems
with compensation schemes are their susceptibility to fraudulent and inflated claims. This would
occur when compensation is reliant on the information provided by the ‘complainant’ through
their applications for compensation, as it is suspected that the level of complaints about elephants
damage is often disproportionate (i.e. far greater) to its relative contribution to the farming
problem (IUCN).
A possible way of reducing such fraudulent and inflated claims would be through
targeting (i.e. improving) the reliability of the information given in claims on which
compensation is decided. Through the enumeration of HEC, in accordance to the IUCN
& AfESG HEC Protocol, incidents would be recorded in a standardised way by an
impartial party (the enumerator), improving the reliability of the information. This
information could then be used alongside applications for compensation as a tool against
inflated and fraudulent claims as well as making claims more proportionate.
One way of making this work may be through the creation of a receipting process for each HEC
incident that is recorded. For each individual incident recorded by an enumerator, 3 copies of the
‘Elephant Damage Report’ would exist. A copy would stay with the complainant as a ‘receipt’
showing enumeration had taken place, a second copy would be kept by the ‘compensating body’
i.e. the park authority, and the third would remain with the enumerating team for the construction
of data files, incidents spreadsheets and analysis etc.
If the complainants chose to apply for compensation their receipt would serve as;
 proof of the elephant damage
 proof that the elephant damage had been enumerated
 when referenced with the copy kept by the compensating body would ensure it’s a
genuine claim, reducing fraudulent claims
 provide standardised and impartial information on damages on which compensation
would be based, reducing inflated claims.
 would provide a means of recording to whom compensation would / had been paid
To ensure that claims are processed within appropriate time, complainants should be given a
number of days in which they must submit an application for compensation, preventing back
logging of events. It may also be advantageous to have enumerators trained in giving advice
about applying for compensation i.e. the likelihood of a claim being honoured should an
application be submitted. This would potentially reduce the number of smaller, non-honourable,
claims, saving time and administrative costs.

21
If such a receipting system was established it may be necessary to have complainants verify the
information recorded by signature or fingerprint, showing that they agree to what the report says,
strengthening the legitimacy of any claims. In areas with low literacy rates the information may
need to be dictated to the complainant after which they would be asked to verify.
Such a scheme would be reliant on;
 All incidents of HEC being recorded by a trained enumerator
 Information recorded in a standardised way
 Enumerators remaining impartial
 That corruption does not exist with enumerators
BOX 1. Problems of Compensation schemes.
 Disproportionately low compensation
 Expensive and slow administration (because of the need to train assessors and
cover large areas), resulting in compensation taking a long time to be paid
 Inability to cover all claims
 Absence of sufficient funds to cover all claims
 Unequal disbursement (e.g. only to some people), creating social disputes and
resentment
 Need for stringent controls etc. verification needed for fraud prevention
 Inability to reduce the level of conflict because the root causes of the problems
are not being addressed or tackling, leading to no apparent end point
 Schemes inability to build positive relationship between local communities and
wildlife authorities
 High potential for considerable abuse of blatant corruption through; bogus claims,
Inflated claims etc
 An immediate increase in claims when schemes are first started, suggesting either
corruption, or a decrease in crop guarding, or both
 The Reduction in the incentive for self defence by farmers in light of a
compensation scheme, which can even exacerbate the scale of the problem
 The inability to quantifiable some socio-economic and opportunity cost for
people affected by the threat of elephants
 The only positive comment was that incentives of crop damage were reported,
allowing the areas of high conflict to be identified (Nelson et al, 2003)

22
Traditional Methods of Conflict Alleviation within the Khata Corridor and
around BNP
The term ‘traditional methods’ is vague, encompassing all self-defence measures taken by local
farmers (with local variations) to protect their crops from elephant damage. The term loosely
encompasses local methods used before local authority involvement in HEC management and
before the evolution of what are considered ‘modern techniques’. Many of these methods have
been used for centuries and are still largely used today (Nelson et al, 2003). Hoare & Du Toit
(1999) see that the major problem associated with traditional methods, particularly in the long
term, is the ease with which elephants become habituated, whereas Osborn & Parker (2002) in
looking at both passive and active traditional methods of Problem Animal Control (PAC) believe
the overall strength of these (traditional) methods lies in their simplicity, which allows farmers to
repair and adapt methods as to when elephants become habituated to them. This simplicity also
means that farmers can make many of the components themselves, and can buy any manufactured
equipment.
Chaudhary, 20044
, recorded traditional alleviation methods used around the southern boundary of
BNP, identifying 6 individual methods, which can be categorised into 3 groups;
1) Guarding, through the use of Machans and Atuwas
2) Physical barriers in the form of Trenches, Fences and Burning wood logs
3) Community Protection by scaring the elephants off farm land by chasing them with
flames and tin hitting
Guarding through the use of Machans and Atuwas (Chaudhary 2004)
Machans and Atuwas work as lookout towers from which elephants can be seen entering fields,
providing an elevated platform from which large areas of farm and cropland can be observed.
The Machan, one of the most popular means used by farmers is a cottage (platform with roof)
that is usually erected prior to the ripening of crops for guarding purposes. Generally built in
fields they can accommodate 1-2 persons who use them to look for elephants entering their fields.
The sound of elephants entering and grazing alerts those on look-out in the machans, when
elephants are seen other locals are alerted so that a joint effort can be made to chase the animals
off the land. Conservation partners, mainly WWF, PPP and CARE Nepal, along with park
authorities have helped in the funding and erecting of 3 story high (20- 25m) machans to help
combat the issue of HEC. These machans cost around Rs. 200,000 each, and can accommodate 5-
7 people, and are safer then locally constructed ones.
Atuwas are often built in trees, and are a traditional type of machan built to guard crops, where
locally made beds (Khatiya’s) are hung up on tree branches with a thatched grass roof. Only one
guard can accommodate a single Atuwa which are common along the eastern bank of the
Khauraha River, south of the park headquarters.
Physical barriers in the form of Trenches, Fences and Burning wood logs
4
Sourced from Bardia Conservation Program (previously the King Mahendra Trust for Nature
Conservation) office, Thakurdwara, Bardia, Nepal

23
Trenches are common along the park boundaries, usually dug by locals to prevent elephants from
crossing onto agricultural land. If deep and wide enough to prevent elephants from crossing
trenches can initially be effective, however become ineffective due to lack of maintenance and
the many passages, made by locals, over them to allow them access into parks (Chaudhary,
2004).
The southern boundary of the BNP is fenced off with barbed wire, however in places this has
found to have been trampled by elephants. Many people are interested in the use of electric fences
as a mitigation effort, using solar panels to power them in locations where electricity is
unavailable (Chaudhary, 2004). Electric fences have been used in certain locations, including
between the army base and the Bardia Conservation Program (BCP) close to the park HQ in
THakurdwara, but lack of maintenance has hindered their success and a lack of ownership by
local people has resulted in people taking fence post and wire, as man seeks to meet his own
needs over those of the commons (Hardin, 1968).
Locals have also been known to use ‘biofences’ to guard their crops, which are fences consisting
of dense or thorny vegetation cover (sometimes both), planted linearly through which animals
find it difficult to penetrate. Equally a biofence can be constructed from cut natural and
biodegradable materials such as cane. A report by the BICP5
reported that in general, owners of
both machans and biofences are satisfied with the efficacy of the measures. A questionnaire by
the BICP reports that machans, biofence and trenches were rated as being ‘mostly effective’ by
more then 50% of the respondents (BICP, 2001)6
.
People believe elephants are scared of fire and people usually burn wood logs at the entrance
points of fields when animals appear to be entering (Chaudhary, 2004). Although it is true that
most wild animals avoid fire, fires at field boundaries, or at entry points, serve as a short term
deterrent, as elephants soon become habituated. Burning wood logs is unsustainable for any
length of time without large tracts of forest being cut down (Nelson et al, 2003). It appears that
the only purpose of burning wood logs at the edges and entrances to fields, are in circumstances
when community patrols are taking in affect, and the fires improve visibility at night. One
possible way of combating this problem may be to set up biogas plants which would allow
lanterns to be burnt instead of wood.
Community Protection
Local people often chase elephants through in a combined community effort, when elephants are
noticed on or near cropland, locals are informed and together chase the elephants away using fire
bundles and by making noise. They believe that the sound and smell of smoke is unpleasant to
elephants and claim it is an effective method in protecting crops. Locals in Thakadwara, Shivpur
and Suryapatuwa claim they have successfully protected their crops using this combined
community effort and machan guarding. (Chaudhary 2004).
Noise produced from tin hitting, hitting empty metal boxes and drums is another common
technique used by farmers to scare elephants from their land. Empty metal boxes are connected
with strings in some places in the field or in the surroundings from where they can be heard if
elephants approach (Chaudhary 2004). Producing noise to scare elephant’s works initially but
again their intelligence means they soon become habituated once they realise there’s no real
danger.
5
BICP - Bardia Integrated Conservation Program, replaced by TAL - Terai Arc Landscape Project - TAL
6
BICP, 2001. Sourced from the WWF office, Kathmandu, Nepal

24
Community involvement
It is of fundamental importance to include those who are most affected by the problem in the
solution. The initiatives to construct elephant-proof trenches, establish electric fences and to
adopt other measures to prevent crop degradation needs to be taken at the individual and
community levels so that people living on the periphery of elephant habitats can look after the
maintenance of the barriers (Talukdar & Barman, 2003).The maintenance issue of fences and
trenches seems to best addressed through small projects as incentives to maintain and enforce
preventative measures. This is best achieved by transferring ownership of the management
strategies to the local communities that are affected, especially where strategies are ‘high-tech’
and prone to needing maintenance (Nelson et al, 2003).
Further more, awareness programmes for the villages need to be carried out by NGOs and
government agencies to enlist the support and participation of the people in the protecting of
elephants and minimizing conflict. Anti-elephant depredation squads involving villages need to
be set up especially in those months when elephant depredation is known to escalate (Talukdar &
Barman, 2003).

25
Refining Traditional Conflict Alleviation Techniques
Machans, Trenches and Chili-grease Fences
Introduction
Dirty mapping of HEC within the Khata corridor showed machans and trenches to be the most
implemented alleviation methods against HEC. Despite many of the machans in the study having
been constructed with the aid of outside organisations, removing them from being a traditional
alleviation method on economic grounds, the original concept of a machan started as a traditional
alleviation method, and trenches still remain as a traditional alleviation method. Such alleviation
methods will continue to be used by locals in these areas as they are economically viable and can
be implemented independently away from outside organisations or funding.
Refining such techniques so they are more affective against elephants, whilst maintaining that
they are economically viable, can be implemented independently away from outside organisations
and fall under the definition a traditional method could make these techniques more successful at
reducing HEC. Here this report reflects on possible ways or refining machans and trenches by
looking at modern techniques and how their principles can be adapted to suit the need of
traditional methods, as well as looking at other traditional methods such as chili-grease, and
possible combinations of traditional methods.
Manchans and Atuwas
The use of lookouts (machans & Atuwas) to alert community members of elephant presence so
they are collectively able to drive them away is one example supporting Nelsons (2003) idea that
a combination of techniques works better then any individual technique working in isolation. The
disadvantages of manually guarding crops in this way are the sociological impacts it has as a
result of a loss of sleep and time which results in loss of earnings. One way of reducing the
negative sociological aspects of actively guarding crops may be to incorporate a disturbance
method in the form of Trip wire alarms, primarily to deter elephants and as a secondary method to
alerting locals to elephants entering their fields (O’Connell-Rodwell et al, 2000).
Trenches
As Chong (2005) points out, the major drawback with trenches is their susceptibility to
weakening through soil erosion which in turn can provide elephants with a crossing point as the
trench walls collapse and fill in the trench. Therefore it would be rational to assume that through
‘refining’ trenches by reducing their susceptibility to erosion, they would become more effective.
Trenches have been dug at 5 of the 8 sites where interviews took place (Bhangaha, Dhanaura,
Laksmipur (Bhagaraiya), Khata and Patharbojhi), none of which have been completely successful
in preventing elephants from entering onto cultivated land. Trenches vary considerably between
sites with the most suitable trenches appearing to be those dug around the community of
Laksmipur. The trench around the community of Laksmipur appears to be of adequate depth and
width to prevent elephants from crossing. However, these trenches are dug into sandy earth soils
and surrounding vegetation has been removed. As a result there is little shade and a lot of direct
sunlight onto the surface of the soil so the walls soon become dry and brittle, becoming
insufficiently strong and easily broken down.
The trench at Patharbojhi is readily identifiable despite its age (10 years old), most likely as a
result of it being dug into the type of erosion resistant clay soil suggested by Nelson. One
important aspect to note, however, is that this trench is heavily shaded by surrounding vegetation,

26
receiving little direct sunlight. Where this trench falters is in its inadequate dimensions that allow
elephants to cross it.
Economically viable ways of refining trenches
Trench dimensions
Sukumar (1989) recommends dimensions for trench construction as being 2m x 2m x 1.5m; this
is for a symmetrical trench 2 meters across at the top, 2 meters deep and 1.5 meters wide at the
bottom, with both walls being equally steep (Figure 3a). Chong (2005), citing Blair and Nache
(1979a), recommends dimensions for trench construction as being 2.4m x 1.8m x 1.2m, this is for
an asymmetrical trench which is 2.4m wide at the top, 1.8m deep, and 1.2m wide at the bottom,
with a vertical internal wall (scheme side) and the external side (forest side) sloping at about 56°
(Figure 4b).
Figure 3. Scale diagram of Sukumar’s (1989) recommended dimension for trench construction
Figure 4. Scale diagram of Chongs (2005) recommended dimensions for trench construction, based on
Blair and Nache (1979)
Where Sukumar aims to create a trench that is both un-crossable and impenetrable to elephants,
the idea with Chongs trench is to create a trench wide enough that the elephants cannot walk over
it, with a bottom that’s narrow enough so that the elephant cannot walk along the trench, as they
will be more likely to find weak points along the trench in that way. A sloping external wall helps

27
create the illusion of a higher internal wall, prevents erosion, and enables elephants that have
entered the trench to leave it (Chong 2005).
Comparing these dimensions we see only small differences in trench depth (0.2m) and widths
(0.3m bottom) (0.4m top) with the biggest differences in the trenches being the angles of their
external wall. The vertical internal wall in Chongs design may be difficult and expensive to
construct, possibly requiring additional strengthening. However, it’s rational to assume that the
dimensions of Sukumar’s’ trench creates an angle an elephant cannot climb up or down, whilst
maintaining slightly more structural stability.
The type of trench used will determine which wall, if any, would need strengthening. In the case
of Sukumar’s trench, its external wall may need strengthening as it would acquire the full weight
of trespassing elephants from above and would receive any damage inflicted by elephants. In
contrast Chongs trench would need its internal wall strengthening, as its external walls permit
elephant’s entry into the trench, its internal wall would be left vulnerable to elephant damage.
Trench Spoil
The deposition of the trench spoil can affect the effectiveness of the trench. The position of the
spoil is debated, on sloping ground the spoil should be placed on the side of the trench with the
lower elevation so that it won’t be deposited into the trench from overland flow, on flat ground it
should be placed on the agricultural side to prevent elephants from kicking the spoil into the
trench in order to fill it (Chong 2005). Blaire and Nache (1979b) suggest that the spoil should be
placed on the forest side of the trench around 1.2 meters away. This is to create a narrow space
between the spoil mound and the trench. This narrow space will restrict the elephants’
movements and prevent them from kicking in the external side of the trench to fill it in.
Cover crops
A cover crop on the walls of trenches may help strengthen them by binding the soil together
(Chong 2005), whilst also providing shade maintaining soil moisture. Broadly defined, a cover
crop is any plant grown to improve any number of conditions associated with sustainable
agriculture. For the needs of stregthening the walls of a trench, a cover crop would be esablished
to bind the soil, anchoring it in place, improving soil quality and decreasing soil erosion.
A monoculture of a subtrapoical perennial species may be the most disirable to establish, not
dying back exposing the soil to erosion in the first couple of years, providing continuouse
strength. Such a cover crop would need to be established in quick succession after a trench is dug
to prevent too much drying out, it maybe necessary to provide temporary shade to prevent drying
by covering the trench allowing time for the crop to germinate. Dr TB Shresta, on the subject of
cover crops, suggested that a locally known grass species, known as Caus Casu Grass, has been
used in strengthening sloping ground to prevent soil erosion due to its large root network (pers
comm, 2006).
Pebble and wire constrictions
The location of the Khata corridor amongst the Karnali river network means there is a large
deposition of alluvial debris throughout the area in the form of large loose stones (pebbles). The
District Development Committee (DDC) has utilised the larger of these stones to construct walls
by enclosing them within wire baskets to buffer the effects of erosion on riverbanks. Such
constructions could be used to strengthen vertical walls of trenches, or to create free standing
blockades, obstructing entry points onto crop land.

28
Trench / Fence Combinations
Chong (2005) further suggests that the erection of an electric fence, angled over the internal wall
of the trench on the scheme side, may further enhance its effectiveness. However, electric fences
carry high economic expenses and fall outside the category of being a “Traditional” alleviation
method. Therefore the erection of a Chilli Grease String Fence may provide a cheaper and
potentially equally affective alternative whilst still retaining itself as a “Traditional” method.
Chilli Grease fences as olfactory repellents
The irritant in chillies (Capsicum spp) has been the focus of research for olfactory elephant
repellents (Nelson 2003). Oleo-resin capsicum spray – Capsicum-based repellents (in aerosol
form) have a history of success in reducing bear attacks on humans in North America and in use
against human criminals (Osborn & Rasmussen, 1995) with the atomised cloud producing a
severely irritating effect on any mucous membrane it comes into contact with (e.g. eyes, mouth,
and respiratory tract). Osborn & Rasmussen (1995) tested the spray on wild African elephants in
Zimbabwe showing a positive repellent reaction. Chilli-grease as a repellent is also being tested
in Zimbabwe on simple types of barriers and fences around crops, similarly, noxious smoke from
burning ‘brickettes’ made with chilli seeds and elephant dung is also being tested in Zimbabwe
(Hoare, 2001).
Chili grease fences
Around BNP the Business Development Services (BDS) introduced a highly marketable and
potent hybrid chilli species as a means for better income generation in the area, as well as being
unpalatable to many wild animals, reducing HWC. This Chilli hybrid, known as NS–1701 (Indian
Variety), is a premium chili hybrid that has a very high tolerance level to viruses and thrips,
whilst performing well under high temperatures it is suitable for being grown all year round. It
has spreading plants, well branched, with fruits 7-8cm long and 0.8cm in girth that turn green
after 75 days (immature) and then dark red after 85 days (mature), that have a high pungency
(75,000 SHU) (www.namdhariseeds.com/ns1701).
A chilli grease fence would potentially consist of 4 major components; String, Posts, Chillies and
Grease. String could either be made locally from wood fibbers, or bought relatively cheaply
(compared to other fence materials i.e. barbed wire, plane wire) from rural markets. Posts could
be cut from stands of bamboo, providing they were sustainably managed. Chillies could be grown
with the specific intention of using them on these fences, leaving the grease as the only resource
that would potentially have to be sourced from outside rural areas (second hand motor grease may
be preferable, as it may be free or cheap to acquire).
The variables involved in using chilli grease fences would include 1) the rate at which chilli
grease (dried chillies mixed with grease) would have to be reapplied to string fences to ensure its
effectiveness in deterring elephants, and, 2) the quantities of chillies needed to produce chilli
grease with a potency high enough to deter elephants. These variables have been tested in
countries in Africa as a means of conflict alleviation against African Elephants by the Elephant
Pepper Development Trust (EPDT), and current studies in using olfactory replants against HEC
in Cambodia are currently being carried out by the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS).

29
Conclusion:
Giving advice on digging trenches
From the information gathered it would seem advisable to give local communities information on
refining the digging of trenches. This would potentially improve the effectiveness of their
trenches and could also be used for refining previously dug trenches. Advice would be given on
trench components based on previous findings. From the discussion above, this report would
suggest giving the following advice;
The location of the spoil mound is subjective so will be different for each site. Advice should
follow that outlined by Chong (2005), which is; Spoil: On sloping ground the spoil should be
placed on the side of the trench with the lower elevation so that it won’t be deposited into the
trench from overland flow, on flat ground it should be placed on the agricultural side to prevent
elephants from kicking the spoil into the fence in order to fill it. To create a narrow space
between the spoil mound and the trench, to restrict the elephants’ movements and prevent them
from kicking in the external side of the trench to fill it in, spoil should be placed on the forest side
of the trench around 1.2 meters away (Blaire and Nache 1979b).
Despite the above advice being accurate, the accurate digging of trenches in rural communities is
impractical. Because it is likely that communities won’t have the aid or measuring equipment like
tapes these dimensions will have to be given via other means. Bamboo poles can be cut to aid in
measuring the trench dimensions. One Bamboo pole cut between 1.8 and 2m long would serve
for measuring the depth and the width at the top of the trench. A second bamboo pole cut between
1.2 and 1.5 meters would serve for measuring the width at the bottom of the trench and for the
location of the spoil mound.
For locals to have the ability to cut these bamboo poles close to the correct lengths they first need
some way of measuring close to these lengths. These lengths could be measured and marked onto
the corner or a community building by TAL / Park or CFCC staff using a tape measure, against
which community members could then cut bamboo poles. Alternately people could be advised to
use their bodies to determine these lengths. The length for the pole to measure depth and width
this length could be equal to the point on a wall where a persons’ fingertips reach when they have
one pointing vertically upwards. The length for the pole to measure to the width at the bottom of
the trench could be equal to the height of a persons’ waist (belly button) or top of their leg.
Measuring the angles for the trench can also be achieved through similar methods using the same
bamboo poles. Because we advise Sukumar’s angle for the internal wall of the trench, we know
that, the width at the bottom of the trench (1.5m) is 0.5 meters narrower then the width at the top
of the trench (2m). Because the trench is symmetrical this places 0.25m as the footprint of the
sloping internal wall (Figure 5). By measuring this same distance from the lip of the trench, using
Trench Dimensions
 Depth - - - Between 1.8 and 2 meters
 Width Top - - Between 1.8 and 2 meters
 Width Bottom - - Between 1.2 and 1.5 meters
 Internal wall angle - Between 83° (Sukumar 1989)and 90°
 External wall angle - Between 56° (Chang 2005) and 90°

30
a bamboo pole, into the void of the trench and a attaching a weighted string (weight require so the
string will be taut) 2 meters in length, to get the correct angle the trench wall needs to be cut
within the lip of the trench and where the weighted string lies (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Scale diagram of how weighted string and bamboo can help establish the desired internal angle
of a trench, based on trench dimension from Sukumar (1989)

31
Final Thought…
Despite the lack of hard scientific evidence to support claims that Bardia’s
elephant population has; increased, have been forced to take residency within the park,
and that may have passed the parks carrying capacity - having to raid crops out of
necessity, there is some evidence to suggests so, supported by continuous incidents of
HEC.
To address the problem of HEC it’s essential to have data on what it is the
elephants are raiding and where and when incidents occur, so strategic implementation of
both short and long term alleviation methods can be initiated. This data needs to be
collected through deliberate, standardized, field research efforts, ideally using trained
enumerators, as HEC incidents occur. Data on the ecology of both the park and the
elephants is needed, so a better understanding of how they interact can be understood,
ensuring that potential alleviation methods don’t further restrict the elephant’s
movements.
Understandings of the economic and sociological implications for those people
affected by HEC needs to be achieved. People with little money will continuously turn to
traditional alleviation techniques that are economically viable for them, that aren’t
dependant on outside equipment or funding. The significance of traditional techniques
needs to be recognised, and efforts made to support these people in refining them so they
become more effective in reducing conflict.
Michael Cordingley (2007)
Report and Contact Information:
This report was constructed as part of a 6 month internship with the WWF- Nepal program that ran from
the 28/08/2006 – 28/02/2007 AD by Michael Cordingley.
For any more information or details please contact:
Michael Cordingley via.
Email – Michaelcordingley@hotmail.com
Or Dr Sara Parker, Seniour Lecture at Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, England
Email – S.L.Parker@livjm.ac.uk

32
References:
BICP. 2001. Integrating Conservation, A Community Approach to Conservation In Royal Bardia National
Park, Nepal. WWF Nepal Program, Katmandu, Nepal
Byrne, P. 1991. Tula Hatti, the last great elephant. Faber and Faber. Boston. USA
Chaudhary, S. K. 2004. Study on Human Elephant Conflict: A case study from the south western buffer
zone of the Royal Bardia National Park. Thesis for M.Sc, Degree in Natural Resource Management.
Pokhara University, Pokhara, Nepal
Chong, D. K. F. & Dayang Norwana, A. A. B. 2005. Guidelines on the Better Management Practices for
the Mitigation and Management of Human-Elephant Conflict in and around Oil-Palm Plantations in
Indonesia and Malaysia. Version 1. WWF-Malaysia, Petaling Jaya.
Dasai, A, A. 2002. Design of human elephant mitigation strategy for the proposed Tesso Nilo Protected
area, and possible expansion of such strategy into the Tesso Nilo Conservation Landscape, and the
province of Riau. WWF-Indonesia, Jakarta
Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248.
Hoare, R. E. 2001a. A decision support system for managing human elephant conflict situations in Africa.
Pages 1-110. IUCN African Elephant Specialist Group Report.
Hoare, R. E. & Du Toit, J. T. 1999. Coecsistence between People and Elephants in African Savanas.
Conservation Biology, 13,
IUCN. Unknown Date. Data Collection and Analysis Protocol for HEC Situations in Africa. IUCN, WWF
International. Arusha. Tanzania
IUCN. Unknown Date. Training Package for enumerators of elephant damage. IUCN, WWF International.
Arusha. Tanzania.
Montanye, D. et al. 2003. The Root Causes of Biodiversity Loss in the Terai Arc Landscape: An
exploration of factors affecting biodiversity loss and the relationship to livelihoods. Unknown Publisher
Unknown Location of publication
NIDI. 2006. Nepal District Profile 2006. Mrs Geeta Rimal. Katmandu, Nepal, Bardia - Pages 1212 -1230
Nelson, A. Bidwell, P. & Sillero-Zubiri, C. 2003. A review of Human Elephant Conflict Management
Strategies. People and Wildlife Initiative. Wildlife Conservation Research Unity, Oxford University.
Osborn. F.V, & Parker G.E. 2002. Elephant/human conflict around the Luangwa National Park, Zambia.
WWF & SARPO. Harare, Zimbabwe.
Osborn, F. V. & Rasmussen, L. E. L. 1995. Evidence for the effectiveness of an oleo-capsicum aerosol as a
repellent against elephants in Zimbabwe. Pachyderm, 20: 55-64
Sukumar, R. 1989. The Asian Elephant, Ecology and Management. Cambridge University, Cambridge
University Press
Talukdar, B. K. & Barman, R. 2003. Man- Elephant Conflict in Assam (India): Is there any solution?
GAJAH, Journal of the Asian Elephant Specialist Group, 22, 50 - 56
Velde, P. F. 1997. A Status Report of Nepals Wild Elephant Population. Unkown Publishers, Katmandu,
Nepal;

Investigation and review of Human Elephant Conflict in the Bardia – Katarniaghat Corridor, Nepal

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (13)

Similar to Investigation and review of Human Elephant Conflict in the Bardia – Katarniaghat Corridor, Nepal

Similar to Investigation and review of Human Elephant Conflict in the Bardia – Katarniaghat Corridor, Nepal (20)

Investigation and review of Human Elephant Conflict in the Bardia – Katarniaghat Corridor, Nepal