View
106
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
An Investigation in to Primate Crop Raiding from
Farmland Surrounding Gongoni Forest and Buda
Forest, Kwale District, Kenya
Progress report March 2015, Diani, Kenya
For more information, references or detailed project information on Colobus Conservation activities or results, contact
Keith Thompson (General Manager) or Andrea Donaldson (Conservation Manager) at:
Colobus Conservation
P.O. Box 5380
80401 Diani Beach
Kenya
Tel/Fax: + 254 (0) 711 479453
Email: enquiries@colobusconservation.org
Web: www.colobusconservation.org
2
1. Introduction
Understanding and addressing conflict between humans and wildlife due to crop-raiding is a
crucial conservation issue [1], [2]. Crops near forest are often predictable and accessible sources of
nutrition for wildlife [3], and extensive damage through raiding can adversely impact farmer
livelihood [4], [5], compromise food security [6], reduce tolerance of wildlife [7], and undermine
management strategies [8]. Conflict mitigation requires a comprehensive record of crop-raiding
activity, including patterns of raiding, farmer and raider behaviour, crop losses, and the
parameters of raiding events [9].
The literature on crop-raiding includes many accounts of non-human primates or other animals
entering farms and raiding crops [10], [11], [12], [13]; however, these are typically indirect or
anecdotal rather than systematic observations of behaviour. There is also little empirical analysis
of which attributes of crop-raiding events (CREs) determine amount of crop loss. Although raider
age and/or sex, group size, crop-raiding experience, and distance from forest potentially influence
the extent of raiding at a farm [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], few studies quantify these or other
parameters of CREs, or confirm links to the amount of damage that occurs during a CRE. This
information is essential when developing techniques to protect crops because (i) deterrents can
be designed to address specific raiding characteristics and (ii) methods reducing damage directly
have the largest impact on yields and greatest value for farmers [19].
The effectiveness of crop-protection techniques is reflected in crop loss per unit of cost and
farmer effort [9]. Therefore, quantifying the CRE parameters that determine damage to crops also
measures deterrent efficacy. These parameters will be behavioural indices of the impact of
deterrents and are likely to include how many individuals raid, how far they travel onto a farm,
and how long they raid for. Related factors might include whether raids occur in series and/or age
composition of the raiding group. Age probably correlates with raiding experience for primates
consuming crops [3]; compared to novice raiders, primates with greater experience should access
or process crop items more efficiently, and avoid detection by farmers more frequently or for
longer durations. Parameter values may vary across species and/or circumstances, and collectively
are likely to reflect the tactics used by raiding animals.
The research will investigate the behaviour of multiple primate species to explore links between
CRE characteristics and resultant damage to crops. The parameters of CREs that determine
farmers’ losses will be identified and quantified, to better understand which aspects of raider
behaviour should be targeted by deterrents to reduce crop-raiding and manage conflict.
3
2. Methods
2.1 Study Sites
The Gongoni and Buda Forest crop raiding study is an accumulation of five phases to be conducted
upon nine villages. By the end of March 2015 phases 1-3 will either be completed or underway for
two villages, Vumbu and Mwaloya, with phase 4 and 5 due to commence in April and May.
Phase 1 – Background research – One month
Review of published reports and confer with experts in this field regarding methods trialled and
tested in other locations.
Progress: Completed August 2014 followed by finalising staff recruitment until mid September.
A full literature review is available on request, the introduction above is a one page summary.
This phase will not need to be repeated for subsequent villages and therefore requires no
further attention.
Phase 2 – Questionnaire development, surveying and identifying potential study sites - One month
(per location)
The research will be conducted at forest-agriculture interfaces around Buda and Gongoni Forest,
Kwale District, Kenya. Initial consultative meetings between Colobus Conservation and affected
groups, as identified by Base Titanium, will be held and a questionnaire survey will be conducted
on an individual basis with crop based farmer occupying land. Using the information gathered
during this phase of the research, two farms will be selected to conduct a pilot study, the selection
process will consider (a) vulnerability to crop-raiding [4], [16], [22], (b) range and distribution of
crops, and (c) farmer support for research objectives.
Progress: Completed for Vumbu and Mwaloya mid-September to mid-November 2014. Vumbu
and Mwaloya villages were selected prior to the questionnaire being conducted, their selection
was based on requests from Base Titanium personnel and ease of access for the research team.
As a result of this early selection the questionnaire survey has only been conducted in these
locations and will need to be conducted before baseline surveying can commence in subsequent
villages. A review of this survey is presented the results section.
Phase 3 – Baseline Study – Three months for first village, longer for remaining villages
The focus of the baseline study is to fully understand the mechanism of the crop raiding events
(CRE). Observations will be conducted from hidden areas that afford a continuous view of on-farm
and farm edge activity while rendering observers inconspicuous to wildlife. During this period of
baseline monitoring Colobus Conservation observers will not respond to animals entering farms
and will not disclose details of raiding activity to any people on farms. All data will be collected in
accordance with institutional ethics requirements, established ethical guidelines for social and
primate research, and with the consent and support of village councils and participating farmers.
4
A CRE is defined as when one or more individuals of one species enter a farm, interact with one or
more crop, and leave the farm. A CRE will commence when the first individual enters the farm and
end when the last individual exits; duration will be measured in seconds using digital stop-
watches. A crop is one plant, stalk, or fruit of a crop. Primate age categories will be classified as
adult (full species-sex-specific size), sub-adult (not fully grown, beyond infant development,
exhibits independent behaviour frequently), or infant (developmentally small and dependent,
carried frequently, maintains close proximity to adults).
Data will be collected using all-occurrences continuous sampling [24] and include for each CRE:
1) time and distance to nearest human when the first individual entered the farm,
2) time when each additional individual entered the farm,
3) age-category and sex of each individual,
4) farm entry point(s),
5) incidence and location(s) of crop interaction, including type(s) of crop,
6) time when each individual exited the farm,
7) time and distance to nearest human when the last individual exited the farm,
8) farm exit point(s),
9) total number of individuals entering the farm and total number remaining outside the farm,
Data regarding the behaviour of farmers and other humans on farms will also be collected using
all-occurrences continuous sampling. These data will include
1) presence or absence of humans on farms,
2) nature of on-farm human activity,
3) extent of guarding behaviour, and
4) responses to crop-raiding primates.
Crop damage will be determined by counting stems interacted with, consumed, and/or carried by
primates during CREs.
Progress: Ongoing - Baseline data collection has been conducted in Vumbu and Mwaloya
beginning in December 2014. A small delay in the schedule was observed due to the
requirements for GIS mapping of each research farm which had not been accounted for in the
original proposal and the recruitment and training of field assistants from each village. In
addition the baseline data collection period was extended due to very few crop raiding events
occurring during December or January and therefore insufficient results to analyse. Extremely
preliminary results can be viewed in the results section. These highlight considerable difference
between the perception of CRE of the farmers gained from the questionnaire and actual damage
recorded by impartial researchers.
Phase 4 – Data Analysis – Two months
Data will be entered into SPSS for analysis. Information that will be highlighted to enable Colobus
Conservation to find target solutions will include raiding species, age and sex, average duration of
5
CREs, number and group composition of raiding primates, influence of farmer behaviour and crop
preference.
Progress: Data analysis is scheduled for two months during April and May 2015. Colobus
Conservation aims to reduce this analysis to one month in an attempt to recoup time lost during
the baseline data collection phase. During the data analysis phase field assistants will remain in
the villages collecting CRE data.
Phase 5 - Mitigation development and trials – Six months
Once the data is analysed and the exact cause of the crop raiding problem is known, Colobus
Conservation will consult with experts in the field of primate crop raiding to seek potential
solutions to each specific problems.
Each potential solution will be systematically tested, this will involve implementing the solution
and repeating Phase 2 and 3 to prove if any significant reduction in CRE has occurred.
Proposal: Subject to the results of the analysis, mitigation planning and trails will begin in
May/June 2015 on two farms per village and CRE data collection will continue on all farms. By
conducting the mitigation trails and evaluations in this method data will exist for CRE's pre- and
post- mitigation trails but also with in the same time frame. Recent research has revealed the
importance of being able to evaluate mitigation techniques within exactly comparable time
periods, in addition to pre- and post- mitigation trails. For example, in the event of population
reductions or movements of the crop raiding species the mitigation trail may be deemed
successful when in fact crop raiding has reduced due to a reduction in one or more crop raiding
species.
3. Results
3.1 Questionnaire
The questionnaire survey was conducted in two villages, Vumbu and Mwaloya, during September
and October 2014. Vumbu village comprises 37 farms/household occupied by 266 people, while
Mwaloya village has 15 farms/households occupied by 101 people. Questionnaire interviews were
conducted with a representative of each farm that shared one or more boundaries with the forest.
In total 37 interviews were conducted in Vumbu, however three of these farms no longer cultivate
crops and have been excluded from this report and 10 interviews were conducted in Mwaloya. All
farmers responded to all questions.
The questionnaire survey can be viewed in appendix 1. Results presented for the purpose of this
report focus solely on crop cultivation and experiences of crop raiding. Details regarding
demographic and socio-economic background have not been reviewed in this report but are
available on request.
6
3.1.1 Crops Cultivated
Between the two villages 26 different crops are cultivated, of which 17 are cultivated by farmers in
both villages (table 3.1). On average individual farmers in Vumbu village cultivate 5.3 different
crops annually (range 2-11), while farmers in Mwaloya cultivate 6.3 different varieties of crop
annually (range 3-9). Farmers were requested to rank the crops cultivated on their farm from most
grown to least grown to enable identification of important crop types to focus mitigation efforts
on. Crops that were ranked as most grown by one or more respondents are indicated in table 3.1
with an *.
Table 3.1 Percentage of farmers cultivating each crop displayed as percentage of respondents per village.
* indicates the crop was ranked as most grown by one or more individual farmers within their farm.
Crop Percentage of farmers cultivating crop
Vumbu (n=34) Mwaloya (n=10)
Coconut 82* 90*
Maize 56* 90*
Cashew Nuts 74* 30
Mango 71* 50
Pea 53* 50
Cassava 35* 10
Orange 26* 20
Passion Fruit 18 10
Pumpkin 15 60
Sweet Potato 15 20
Rice 15* 0
Guavas 12 10
Lime 12 10
Banana 9 20
Beans 9 20
Casuarina 6 40
Eucalyptus 6 0
Sisal 6 0
Tomato 6 0
Chillies 3 10
Ground Nuts 3 10
Water melon 0 40
Cotton 0 10
Irish potatoes 0 10
Okra 0 10
Sugar Cane 0 10
Nine crops are cultivated by more than 50% of all farmers interviewed or are highlighted as the
most grown item on at least one farm (figure 3.1).
7
Figure 3.1. Nine crops cultivated by more than 50% of respondents per village or ranked as most grown
by one or more respondents. ** ranked as most grown crop by one or more respondents in Vumbu and
Mwaloya, * ranked as most grown crops by one or more respondents in Vumbu alone.
3.1.2 Crop Raiding Events
Farmers were questioned on their individual experiences and considerations of crop raiding by all
wild animals. All respondents (100%) from both villages reported having experienced crop raiding
by wild animals and believe their livelihood is impacted as a result of this activity. Farmers were
asked to rate how serious they considered the crop raiding problem on their farm to be. The
majority of farmers from Vumbu village (85%) rated their crop raiding problems as very serious,
while the majority of farmers from Mwaloya village (50%) rated their crop raiding problems as
serious (Figure 3.2).
Figure 3.2 How farmers ranked their crop raiding problem displayed as percentage of respondents per
village
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Coconut **
Maize **
Cashew Nuts *
Mango * Pea * Cassava *
Orange *
Pumpkin Rice *
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
'Most Grown' Crops
Vumbu (n=34)
Mwaloya (n=10)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Very Serious Serious Fairly Serious Not Serious No Problem
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Severity Rank
Vumbu (n=34)
Mwaloya (n=10)
8
Respondents were asked to list all wild animals that raid crops on their farm. A total of nine
animals were highlighted between Vumbu and Mwaloya farms (figure 3.3). Farmers from both
villages reported problems with baboons, vervet monkeys, Sykes monkeys and bushpig, an
additional five animals were reported by Vumbu respondents only. All respondents of both villages
reported suffering crop raiding from baboons, with 100% of Mwaloya respondents also reporting
crop raiding by vervet monkeys. Approximately 80% of all respondents reported crop raiding from
bushpig and 50% of Vumbu respondents had experienced crop raiding problems with buffalo. In
addition a breakdown of the crop types raided by each wild animal can be reviewed in Appendix 2.
Figure 3.3 Percentage of respondents, displayed by village, reporting crop raiding events by nine wild
animals species.
When asked 'which wild animal raids your farm most frequently?' more than 80% of respondents
cited baboons, followed by vervet monkeys and bushpig (figure 3.4).
Figure 3.4 Percentage of respondents, displayed by village, who reported the corresponding wild animal
as the most frequent crop raider.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Reported Crop Raiding Speices
Vumbu (n=34)
Mwaloya (n=10)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Baboon Vervet Bushpig
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Most Frequent Crop Raiding Species
Vumbu (n=34)
Mwaloya (n=10)
9
Farmers were further questioned about the frequencies of crop raiding events on their farm by
each species. More than 90% of all respondents perceive that baboon crop raiding events occur
daily and 90% of Mwaloya respondents perceive that vervet monkey crop raiding events occur
daily.
Table 3.2 Farmers perception of how often crop raiding events occur by species, displayed as percentage
of respondents per village.
Species Frequency Percentage
Vumbu (n=34)
Mwaloya (n=10)
Baboons Daily 97 90
Weekly 3 0
Monthly 0 10
Not affected 0 0
Vervet Daily 68 90
Weekly 6 10
Monthly 0 0
Not affected 26 0
Sykes Daily 3 10
Weekly 3 10
Monthly 0 0
Not affected 94 80
Buffalo Daily 3 0
Weekly 44 0
Monthly 3 0
Not affected 50 100
Bushpig Daily 50 0
Weekly 32 80
Monthly 0 10
Not affected 18 10
Other Daily 17 0
Weekly 6 0
Monthly 3 0
Not affected 74 100
Finally, the respondents were asked 'if wild animals had caused any damage other than crop
raiding?'. No other damage was reported by 18% of Vumbu respondents and 60% of Mwaloya
respondents. However, the remaining respondents reported wild animals killing and eating their
livestock (figure 3.5). All cases of damage to livestock was reported to have occurred by baboons
with the exception of one young goat eaten by a python. No other damage as a result of wild
animals was reported.
10
Figure 3.5 Percentage of respondents, displayed per village, reporting wild animals causing damage to
livestock.
3.1.3 Perceived causes of crop raiding
Respondents were asked to list what they perceived to be the cause of crop raiding on their farms
(table 3.3). Overall 94% of Vumbu respondents and 90% of Mwaloya respondents felt the crop
raiding issue had been caused or heightened by the establishment of Base Titanium mine site
and/or the relocation of people from other villages by Base Titanium and Kiscol. Just one
respondent of Mwaloya village stated that the 'animals have always crop raided', while two
respondents from Vumbu said 'our farm is too close to the forest'.
Causes of crop raiding Percentage of farmers
Vumbu (n=34)
Mwaloya (n=10)
Establishment of Base Titanium 44 50
Relocation of people by Base Titanium and/or Kiscol 71 50
Lack of wild food 3 10
Too much forest 3 0
Farm too close to forest 6 0
Wild animals have always crop raided 0 10
Destruction of forest 0 10
Table 3.3 Causes of crop raiding as perceived by the farmers of Vumbu and Mwaloya village
3.1.4 Farmer mitigation already in practice
When questioned all respondents state they are already implementing some level of mitigation
techniques, with 100% of all respondents engaging in chasing activity with or without dogs (table
3.4).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Poultry Young Goats None
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Livestock Damaged by Wild Animals
Vumbu (n=34)
Mwaloya (n=10)
11
Mitigation Methods Percentage of farmers employing
mitigation methods
Vumbu (n=34) Mwaloya (n=10)
Human chasing with dogs 26 90
Human chasing without dogs 74 10
Continuous guarding 6 0
Shooting by KWS representatives 6 0
Shooting by residents 3 0
Snares 0 10
Table 3.3 Mitigation techniques already in use by farmers of Vumbu and Mwaloya village displayed as
percentages.
All Vumbu and Mwaloya respondents engage in chasing activities to protect their crops from wild
animal raids and all agree that this is the most effective method of mitigation for all wild animals
used at present, with the exception of buffalo. Guarding and chasing of crop raiding animals is the
only mitigation technique currently in use on a regular basis in any respondent farm. Some
farmers have historically built fences but they have been destroyed by buffalo and failed to
protect the crop from baboons, vervet or Sykes monkeys.
Buffalo are a large concern to the farmers of Vumbu and many farmers are fearful of the buffalo
due to their size and as such do nothing to deter their raids. Respondents highlighted that
baboons are not fearful of women or children and since the timings of their raids are
unpredictable a guard must be present at all times. Farmers of Vumbu feel overwhelmed by the
perceived increase in baboon numbers and are finding that chasing alone is no longer enough
because as one troop is chased away another enters the farm.
The majority of respondents in both villages indicate that they guard their crops and implement
mitigation techniques (i.e. chasing with or without dogs) all day and all night (table 3.4). Many
farmers think this is too much and mitigation techniques that protect their crop in the absences of
humans need to be devised.
Periods of time that mitigation methods are in operation
Percentage of farms
Vumbu (n=34) Mwaloya (n=10)
All day and all night 59 90
All day 41 10
Table 3.4 Amount of time respondents indicate they spend in protecting their crops from raiding events,
displayed as percentage of respondents per village.
Interviewees were asked for ideas on mitigation techniques or solutions that could be
implemented to resolve the crop raiding issues (table 3.5). An extremely large proportion (94%) of
Vumbu respondents believed relocation of the people was a solution, followed by relocation of
the animals. Mwaloya respondents preferred electric fencing of the forest to prevent the animal
entering the village to relocation of people or animals as a solution.
12
Suggested mitigation methods Percentage of farmers
Vumbu (n=34) Mwaloya (n=10)
Relocation of animals 32 20
Relocation of people 94 0
Electric fence forest 12 60
Electric fence farms 12 0
Employ more guards 0 20
Kill all of the raiding animals 3 0
None given 9 20
Table 3.5 Suggestion made by the respondents on mitigation methods to reduce crop raiding on their
farm displayed as a percentage of respondents per village.
3.2 Preliminary analysis of Baseline Study
Baseline data collection has been conducted on four farms within each of the two villages from
December 2014 - to present. Each farm is studied for a two day period once every eight days, with
two researcher per research period present. All farms have been researched equally. Due to this
rotation crop raiding events may have occurred during this research period on other farms that
have not been recorded. Data analysis for this report consists of three months from December
2014 - February 2015 and includes only the crop raiding events witnessed firsthand by Colobus
Conservation research team.
3.2.1 Crop Raiding Events (CRE)
During the research period 24 CRE's were recorded on farms in Vumbu village and 50 CRE's in
Mwaloya. Two species were recorded raiding Vumbu farms; baboons were responsible for 71% of
CRE's and Sykes 29%. While in Mwaloya farms three species were recorded raiding; baboons were
responsible for 48% of CRE's, vervet monkeys 28% and Sykes monkeys 24% (figure 3.6)
Figure 3.6 Percentage of wild animals responsible for all recorded CRE's displayed per village.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Baboon Vervet Sykes
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f R
eco
rde
d C
RE'
s
Wild Animals Recorded Crop Raiding
Vumbu (n=24)
Mwaloya (n=50)
13
In the majority of CRE's, (54% in Vumbu farms and 75% in Mwaloya farms) no chasing of the crop
raiding animals was recorded (figure 3.7). There were two reasons recorded for the lack human of
response to the CRE's; either there was no-one stationed on the farm guarding the crop or raiding
animals went unnoticed while the people were around the home or working elsewhere on the
farm. In CRE's that were responded to by humans less than half of all events were responded to by
adult men in favour of women and children.
Figure 3.7 Categories of people present on farm to 'guard' crops during each recorded CRE displayed as
percentage of all recorded CRE's per village
At the onset of CRE's where human presence was recorded only 17% of Mwaloya farmers had
someone actively engaged in guarding and patrolling the crop, no guarding activity was recorded
for Vumbu farms at the time of any CRE. In the remaining cases the 'guards' who ultimately chased
away the crop raiding animals were engaged in other activities (figure 3.9).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f R
eco
rde
d C
RE'
s
People Present to Guard Crops during each Recorded CRE
Vumbu (n=24)
Mwaloya (n=50)
14
Figure 3.9 Activity of 'guard' at the start of each CRE that was responded to by human chasing, displayed
as percentage per village.
In both Vumbu and Mwaloya farms when a CRE was responded to by a 'chaser' the majority of
crop raiding animal were chased away by humans using dogs (figure 3.10). Alternative methods
were chasing with other people or chasing alone. Throwing stones and shouting were used in
combination with one of the chasing methods.
Figure 3.10 Mitigation techniques employed by 'chaser' displayed as percentage per village
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Guarding crop and patrolling
Working on the farm
Chores outside
Chores inside
Playing at home
Sitting outside not
vigilent
Inside the house
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f R
eco
rde
d C
RE'
s w
ith
a G
uar
d R
esp
on
se
Acitivity of Guard at onset of Recorded CRE's
Vumbu (n=11)
Mwaloya (n=15)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Chase alone Chase with other people
Chase with dogs
Throw stones
Shout Shout to alert others
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f R
eco
rde
d C
RE'
s w
ith
a G
uar
d R
ep
on
se
Action of Guard to CRE
Vumbu (n=11)
Mwaloya (n=15)
15
Once mitigation techniques, such as chasing were employed during a CRE, in the majority of cases
(77% Vumbu farms and 94% Mwaloya farms) the crop raider left the farm entirely, generally
retreating to the forest (figure 3.11). Ad hoc observations indicate that the guard/chaser needs to
remain present for a period of time afterwards to reduce the chance of the crop raiders re-
entering the farm.
Figure 3.11 Response of crop raiding animal to human mitigation (chasing), displayed as a percentage of
CRE's responded to per village
For each CRE witnessed crops eaten or damaged by wild animals where recorded. Mwaloya farms
had more crops damaged or eaten by crop raiders in terms of quantity and variety and there was
little overlap between the two villages in the types of crops raided (figure 3.12). Information on
crop availability has been recorded but is yet to be analysed. Interestingly in 17% of Vumbu raids
and 22% Mwaloya raids the crop raiders did not damage or eat any crop - the reasons for this are
yet to be understood, but likely link to chasing mitigation efforts by the farmers.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Retreat to forest
Leave farm but watch
from a distance
Leave farm Move away but remain
on farm
Threat display to human or
dog
No response Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f R
eco
rde
CR
E's
wit
h a
Gu
ard
Re
spo
nse
Reponse of Crop Raiding Animal to Guarding Action
Vumbu (n=11)
Mwaloya (n=15)
16
Figure 3.12 Percentage of crops damaged or eaten during CRE, displayed as a percentage per village
4. Discussion
The number of CRE's witnessed by the research team is considerably less than expected for the
information portrayed in the questionnaires, however, the baseline data collection has thus far
been conducted during the dry season and as such crop cultivation has been minimal. In the two
weeks since the first rains fell and the farmers are now seeding new crop the researcher are
reporting an increase in CRE's.
Even with only preliminary analysis of the CRE data it is clear that there are differences between
what the respondents of the questionnaire perceive the problem with CRE's to be and what is
recorded by an independent body, most notable are frequency of occurrence and mitigation
techniques employed by the farmers in the form of human guarding and chasing.
97% and 90% of farmers from Vumbu and Mwaloya respectively state that baboons crop raid their
farms daily, yet during a 120 day research period only 17 raids by baboons on Vumbu farms were
witnessed and 14 on Mwaloya farms. As stated previously this research period did occur during
the dry season when crop cultivation is minimal and therefore crop raiding opportunities are
reduced, however a number of crops were fruiting and harvested during the entirety of this
period, most notably cashew nuts and peas.
All respondents indicated that their crop was guarded through all day light hours by an employed
guard, farm worker or family member. However, in 54% of Vumbu CRE's and 75% of Mwaloya
0
10
20
30
40
50
60 P
erc
en
tage
of
Re
cord
ed
CR
E's
Crops Damaged during Recorded CRE's
Vumbu (n=60)
Mwaloya (n=104)
17
CRE's there was either no human presence anywhere on the farm or the appointed 'guard' was
engaged in alternate activity which resulted in the CRE going unnoticed. When a guard was
present in more than 50% of cases it was women and/or children, despite the respondents being
aware these individuals are not effective at guarding crops against baboons.
Perceived loss of crops to wildlife, inflated crop raiding frequencies and time invested in mitigation
is often pronounced in people’s minds [25]. Other studies that have combined farmers
perceptions with an independent assessment, have shown that farmers often overestimate the
impact of CRE's on their crops and time by as much as 30-35% [7], [10]. Farmers do not necessarily
inflate their estimates intentionally, people’s perception and memory can be influenced by a
number of underlying structural and economic factors [10]. It is often difficult to retrospectively
estimate losses and particular events can take on greater significance in people’s minds [10].
Perceptions also often reflect extreme damage and events not average losses and occurrences [7].
This information is not necessarily unreliable and inaccurate, but has to be handled and
interpreted appropriately [10]. These perceptions form an important part of understanding what
the situation means to those involved, how conflict impacts people’s lives and is ultimately
invaluable in structuring long term effective mitigation techniques.
4.1 Future Plans
From the information displayed in table 3.1 and figure 3.1, nine crops have been selected for the
focus of mitigation efforts. The selection of these nine crops is based upon one of two factors:
1) The crop was cultivated by more than 50% of farmers in either Vumbu, Mwaloya or both or
2) The crop was highlighted as 'most grown' within one or more farm.
It is highly likely that any successful mitigation tools employed for these nine crops will be
transferable to other crops cultivated with similar techniques.
From the results displayed in figures 3.3 - 3.5 in addition to table 3.2 mitigation efforts will focus
primarily on reducing crop raiding by baboons, provided the results of Phase 3 data collection
support these. It is highly likely that any successful mitigation technique for baboons will also be
successful for vervet and Sykes monkeys. Consideration will also be given to trying to reduce crop
raiding by buffalo and bushpig.
4.2 Preliminary Mitigation Techniques
As explained in the methods update (section 2.1) mitigation trails will begin in May 2015 in two
farms per village and CRE data collection will continue within both villages on all four farms. By
conducting the mitigation trails and evaluations in this method data will exist for CRE's pre- and
post- mitigation trails but also with in the same time frame. Recent research has revealed the
importance of being able to evaluate mitigation techniques within exactly comparable time
periods, in addition to pre- and post- mitigation trails. For example, in the event of population
reductions or movements of the crop raiding species the mitigation trail may be deemed
successful when in fact crop raiding has reduced due to a reduction in one or more crop raiding
species.
18
Until a full analysis of the CRE's has occurred decisions on mitigation techniques to trial in the
farms cannot be finalised. With this in mind four main suggestions are currently under
consideration, further research for their effectiveness and approval from Base Titanium are
required.
N.B. Our aim is to ensure that mitigation techniques can continue without on-going input from
Base Titanium and are therefore practical after the life of the mine site. Initial investment from
Base Titanium will be required, but if the mitigation techniques successfully reduce incidents of
CRE's and/or the quantity of crop damage the farmers will experience an increase in financial
benefit from their farm, a portion of which can be reinvested to maintain the mitigation
technique.
Not all suggested mitigation techniques protect all crops from all crop raiding animals and a
combination of techniques may need to be employed.
1) Cones (Colo-cone - see appendix 3) - fixing cones around the trunk of trees where the following
criteria fit (figure 3.13)
the lowest branch is too far from the ground for monkeys to reach and
any neighbouring tree within jumping distance is also suitable for fixture of a cone,
The aim is to produce an independent stand of trees with cones. It is believed that this method
will prevent monkeys from climbing the trunk of a tree to reach the fruit and is deemed most
suitable for use on coconut trees, but may be applicable to some mango trees. It is suggested that
the cone would be constructed out of iron sheets and must be substantially big enough that adult
male baboons cannot simply jump over it.
Figure 3.13 Colocone prototype in trial at Colobus Conservation
19
2) Employ guards/monitors - establish an employment scheme and rota to ensure all farms have
adequate CRE monitors in place and active during all day light hours. In this case monitors must be
men over the age of 18 as women and children are not effective against baboons. Alternatively,
monitors could be assigned to each baboon, vervet and Sykes troop, moving with their assigned
troop from dusk till dawn, scaring the troop away from farms and warning farmers of an
approaching troop. A similar method is in place in urban areas of South Africa.
3) Fencing - fence the perimeter of each farm or entire village. The fence would need to be strong
enough and buried deep enough to prohibit buffalo and/or bushpig. A Perspex (or similar) lip
would need to be place along the top to prevent monkeys climbing over (figure 3.14). This method
could be made functional to mitigate against all major crop raiding species and protect all crops.
Figure 3.14 A fence used in an open topped enclosure for monkeys is the basis for the fence design to
keep crop raiders out of a village or farm
Two issues of concern with this method is the cost of maintenance to keep the fence functional
and as many of the farms fall on Base Titanium or Kiscol land fencing gives the perception of
ownership to the farmer. Alternatively, a fence could be located between the village and the
20
forest only. This would greatly reduce entry points to the village by the animals and if combined
with employment of village guards at the end of each fence, the entry hotspot will be monitored.
4) Baboon proof enclosures for poultry - providing each farmer with a chicken coup and outdoor
run so chickens can be kept safe during periods when guards or monitors are not available. This
mitigation could be implemented immediately, without compromising the remaining study. It
would increase goodwill within the villages towards Base Titanium and provide the farmers with
an alternative source of income while crop raiding issues continue to be addressed.
5. Problems
The only problems of note is the transport of researchers from Base Titanium Camp to their
research village. The researchers need to be in the farms at dawn on alternate days and do not
leave the farm until dusk on the remaining days. Transportation from Base Titanium vehicles have
proven problematic at these times and the researchers are reluctant to walk during nightfall. To
date they have been travelling via push bike, but these are not adequate for the sandy roads in
and out of the villages and break down regularly, frustrating Base Titanium maintenance staff and
compromising research hours on the farm. One workable solution would be for the researcher
based at Base Titanium camp to seek accommodation in their research village on evenings that fall
between afternoon and morning research periods. This would also bring an additional source of
income to a few farmers.
6. Future Plans
There is interest from a Post Doc student based at Durham University, UK, to assist on the
mitigation phase of this project. Leah is an expert in the field of crop raiding mitigation having
worked on similar projects in South Africa and recently completing PhD field work on the topic. If
Base Titanium agrees with the advantage of having such knowledgeable personal join the team
she would aim to join us in September and lead on the mitigation techniques in the remaining 7
villages, while helping to co-ordinate the baseline questionnaire surveys and data collection. She
would be based in the field and work alongside the current researchers developing and
implementing mitigation techniques and she would source her own funding to cover her expenses.
It is our belief that with Leah in the field the project would develop at a much quicker pace.
References
1. Sitati NW, Walpole MJ (2006) Assessing farm-based measures for mitigating human-elephant
conflict in Transmara District, Kenya. Oryx 40: 279–286.
2. Graham MD, Ochieng T (2008) Uptake and performance of farm-based measures for reducing
crop raiding by elephants Loxodonta africana among smallholder farms in Laikipia District, Kenya.
Oryx 42: 76–82.
3. Strum SC (2010) The development of primate raiding: Implications for management and
conservation. International Journal of Primatology 31: 133–156.
21
4. Webber AD (2006) Primate crop raiding in Uganda: Actual and perceived risks around Budongo
Forest Reserve [PhD Thesis]. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University.
5. Hill CM (2005) People, crops, and primates: A conflict of interests. In: Paterson JD, Wallis J,
editors. Commensalism and conflict: The human-primate interface. Norman, Oklahoma: American
Society of Primatologists. 40–59.
6. Hill CM (2000) Conflict of interest between people and baboons: Crop raiding in Uganda.
International Journal of Primatology 21: 299–315.
7. Naughton-Treves L (1997) Farming the forest edge: Vulnerable places and people around Kibale
National Park, Uganda. Geographical Review 87: 27–46.
8. Osborn FV, Parker GE (2003) Towards an integrated approach for reducing the conflict between
elephants and people: A review of current research. Oryx 37: 80–84.
9. Wallace GE (2010) Monkeys in maize: Primate crop-raiding behaviour and developing on-farm
techniques to mitigate human-wildlife conflict [PhD Thesis]. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University.
528 p.
10. Hill CM, Osborn FV, Plumptre AJ (2002) Human-wildlife conflict: Identifying the problem and
possible solutions. Albertine Rift Technical Report Series No 1 Wildlife Conservation Society.
11. CARE ITFC, CDC WCS (2003) Reducing the costs of conservation to frontline communities in
southwest Uganda. Knowledge Base Review Report. CARE International in Uganda, Institute of
Tropical Forest Conservation, Conservation Development Centre, and Wildlife Conservation
Society. 130 p.
12. Paterson JD, Wallis J, editors (2005) Commensalism and conflict: The human-primate interface.
Norman, Oklahoma: American Society of Primatologists. 483 p.
13. Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A, editors (2005) People and wildlife: Conflict or
coexistence? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 497 p.
14. Maples WR (1969) Adaptive behavior of baboons. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
31: 107–109.
15. Strum SC (1994) Prospects for management of primate pests. Revue d'Ecologie (La Terre Et La
Vie) 49: 295–306.
22
16. Naughton-Treves L (1998) Predicting patterns of crop damage by wildlife around Kibale
National Park, Uganda. Conservation Biology 12: 156–168.
17. Saj TL, Sicotte P, Paterson JD (2001) The conflict between vervet monkeys and farmers at the
forest edge in Entebbe, Uganda. African Journal of Ecology 39: 195–199.
18. Warren Y, Buba B, Ross C (2007) Patterns of crop-raiding by wild and domestic animals near
Gashaka Gumti National Park, Nigeria. International Journal of Pest Management 53: 207–216.
19. Conover M (2002) Resolving human-wildlife conflicts: The science of wildlife damage
management. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers. 418 p.
20. Eggeling WJ (1947) Observations on the ecology of the Budongo rain forest, Uganda. Journal of
Ecology 34: 20–87.
21. Plumptre AJ (1996) Changes following 60 years of selective timber harvesting in the Budongo
Forest Reserve, Uganda. Forest Ecology and Management 89: 101–113.
22. Hill CM (1997) Crop-raiding by wild vertebrates: The farmer's perspective in an agricultural
community in western Uganda. International Journal of Pest Management 43: 77–84.
23. Tweheyo M, Hill CM, Obua J (2005) Patterns of crop raiding by primates around the Budongo
Forest Reserve, Uganda. Wildlife Biology 11: 237–247.
24. Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behavior: Sampling methods. Behaviour 49: 227–267.
25. Lee PC & Priston NEC (2005) Human Attitudes to Primates: Perceptions of Pests, Conflict and Consequences for Primate Conservation.
23
Appendix 1
Questionnaire - as attachment
Appendix 2
Vumbu Baboons Vervet Sykes Buffalo Bushpig Other Percentage of farmers
growing the crop
Coconut 82 12 3 0 0 0 82
Maize 47 35 0 30 50 0 56
Cashew Nuts 59 30 0 0 0 0 74
Mango 65 56 6 0 0 0 71
Pea 41 6 0 3 35 0 53
Cassava 24 0 3 0 24 0 35
Orange 18 3 0 0 0 0 26
Passion Fruit 9 9 0 0 3 0 18
Pumpkin 12 0 0 0 9 0 15
Sweet Potato 15 3 0 0 12 0 15
Rice 15 6 0 9 12 15 15
Guavas 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
Lime 9 0 0 0 0 0 12
Banana 6 3 0 0 0 0 9
Beans 9 0 0 3 0 0 9
Casuarina 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
Eucalyptus 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
Sisal 6 0 0 0 0 0 6
Tomato 6 0 0 0 6 0 6
Chilies 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Ground Nuts 3 6 0 0 0 0 3
Water melon N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0
Cotton N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0
Irish potatoes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0
Okra N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0
Sugar Cane N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0
Not raided by species 0 26 94 50 18 82
24
Mwaloya Baboons Vervet Sykes Bushpig Percentage of farmers
growing the crop
Coconut 90 0 0 0 90
Maize 90 90 20 70 90
Cashew Nuts 20 10 0 0 30
Mango 60 60 20 0 50
Pea 30 20 0 30 50
Cassava 0 0 0 10 10
Orange 20 0 0 0 20
Passion Fruit 10 10 10 0 10
Pumpkin 40 0 0 10 60
Sweet Potato 20 10 0 30 20
Rice N/A N/A N/A N/A 0
Guavas 10 10 0 0 10
Lime 0 0 0 0 10
Banana 10 10 0 0 20
Beans 20 20 0 10 20
Casuarina 30 0 0 0 40
Eucalyptus N/A N/A N/A N/A 0
Sisal N/A N/A N/A N/A 0
Tomato N/A N/A N/A N/A 0
Chilies 10 0 0 0 10
Ground Nuts 10 0 0 0 10
Water melon 30 0 0 10 40
Cotton 0 0 0 0 10
Irish potatoes 0 0 0 0 10
Okra 0 0 0 0 10
Sugar Cane 10 0 0 0 10
Not raided by species 0 0 80 20
Appendix 3
Colocone - see attached document
Recommended