| Arms giving: the
manufacture and issue of firearms to farmers The recent proposal to set up an armaments factory in Sri Lanka in order to supply firearms to farmers so that they could protect themselves and their crops against wild animals in general and the elephants in particular is ill conceived, ill timed and insane. It comes at a time when elephants are being slaughtered without rhyme or reason (8 elephants killed within a week in September), in this predominantly Buddhist country of ours which places so much value on life. If this proposal is implemented, then not only will more wildlife be destroyed or maimed indiscriminately, but it will also create a community of armed men and women who can become a menace to society, especially at festival times when fortified with potent alcohol, people usually take the law into their own hands and settle old scores with a vengeance and resolve family feuds. Arms giving should not be confused with alms giving. We are fully aware of the problems faced by the people living in close proximity to wildlife. Parks and reserves are not islands and wildlife, especially the elephants, spill over and range frequently outside the borders of even the largest conservation area in Sri Lanka. A year's staple food crop of a peasant family can be destroyed in a single night by elephants, at times accompanied by death of members of the family. Unless such losses can be compensated adequately and promptly, farmers will call for the destruction of the elephants and other wildlife that endanger their lives and destroy their crops. As competition for natural resources is a fact of life, in the final analysis, the number of elephants any conservation area and it surrounding region can support will depend on the people" tolerance of the animals. Many farmers have lost their tolerances of wildlife in the face of mounting losses and by the absence of any relief from authorities concerned. In the absence of deterrents, such as electric fences, against elephants in many rural areas, the methods people adopt to deter elephants raiding their crops, require almost 24 hour vigil for three or four months at a time during the cultivation season. This is a serious drain on a family's labour and health. The problems faced by the farmers in Sri Lanka cannot be solved by merely arming them. This would make the maintenance of the Department of Wildlife conservation redundant. One must understand why elephants are being slaughtered so indiscriminately in Sri Lanka lately. Many of the elephants that fell victim to the farmers are tusk-less bull elephants or maknahs. These are killed neither for the ivory (which they lack) nor for the meat (fortunately, elephant meat has never been popular in Sri Lanka). Therefore the slaughter of elephants is not the result of an increased demand for ivory, meat or hide. Instead, as the well known Zimbabwean conservationist, Dr. Graham Child points out, the real cause may lie in how farmers perceive the value of elephants. It all boils down to the fact that in Sri Lanka, there seems to be no advantage to the ordinary man of having elephants around. For those people who live next to a protected area, the presence of elephants is a curse. The killing of an elephant therefore, removes a pest. Thus, many farmers may not really regret the disappearance of the elephant from their neighbourhood. A combination of high human population growth and deteriorating fertility of the land in rural areas has led to increased encroachment and degradation of forests inhabited by wildlife. It takes about 5 square kilometres of land to support an elephant in the wild. The 4,000 odd elephants that are estimated to be present in Sri Lanka, will need almost a third of the land area to survive. The existing protected areas cover only 12.5% of the land area, large enough to support only about 1,600 elephants. No wonder 70% of the elephants' range lies outside the confines of the protected areas. The key to mitigating human-elephant conflicts in Sri Lanka is first and foremost, to encourage the adoption of sensible national land use strategies that minimize conflict situations and to ensure that in areas where people and elephants do overlap, that people derive tangible benefits from the presence of the elephants. Furthermore, in areas where elephant depredations impoverish the people, their losses must be promptly and adequately compensated. So far, the amounts paid as compensation have been woefully inadequate. The Department of Wildlife Conservation received a sum of US$ 5 million through the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), and is now negotiating a loan of US $ 40 million. A substantial amount of the funds from such international donor agencies usually go to pay for the services of expatriate consultants. For the people who suffer so many problems such as insufficient health care, inadequate educational facilities, unemployment, fluctuating rainfall, increasing oil prices, etc elephants must surely be a luxury, a luxury that they cannot afford. If only a portion of the financial resources from the international donor agencies is spent to improve the livelihood of those people who bear the brunt of elephant depredations, it may be possible, to enlist their support in minimising the slaughter of elephants in Sri Lanka. The survival of people and large animals such as elephants with whom they share the land, depends on how well these suggestions are implemented. Arming people will be a prelude to a disaster far worse than the slaughter of elephants. Charles Santiapillai, Department of Zoology, Jayantha Jayewardene Biodiversity & Elephant Conservation Trust, |