Living with the modern conservation paradigm: can agriculturalcommunities co-exist with elephants? A ®ve-year case study in

East Caprivi, Namibia

Caitlin E. O'Connell-Rodwell a,*, Timothy Rodwell b, Matthew Rice c, Lynette A. Hart d

aCenter for Conservation Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5020, USAbPathology, Microbiology and Immunology, School of Veterinary Medicine, 1 Shields Avenue, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA

cIntegrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation, (IRDNC), PO Box 9681, Windhoek, NamibiadPopulation Health and Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine, 1 Shields Avenue, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA

Abstract

The economic impact of elephants, Loxodonta africana, and predators, particularly lions, Panthera leo, on rural agriculturists in theKwando region of the East Caprivi, Namibia was assessed from the years 1991 to 1995. Elephants were responsible for the greatest

number of wildlife con¯icts in the region, while lions had the greatest ®nancial impact on farmers. Attempts were made to reducecon¯icts between elephants and farmers using deterrents such as electrical fencing, trip-alarm techniques and elephant warning calls.Success of deterrents depended on the frequency of exposure to elephants, maintenance and the ecology of both humans and ele-

phants in the region. Of the deterrent strategies explored, only electrical fencing reduced elephant damage at the community level. Thefuture e�cacy of electric fencing is uncertain, however, if elephants do not associate it with fear and possible death. Deterrent e�ortsplayed a role in improving relations between communities and conservationists. Scenarios for how human agricultural communities

might co-exist with free-ranging elephants are discussed. # 2000 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Elephant; Lion; Wildlife con¯icts; Agriculture; Community-based conservation.

1. Introduction

The success of conservation e�orts on communal landhinges upon the relationship between people and wild-life. Many people living in rural Africa incur the costs ofliving with wildlife without receiving any bene®t fromthe relationship (Sibanda and Omwega, 1996; Naugh-ton-Trevers, 1998). In the Caprivi region of Namibia,rural people have viewed wildlife as a detriment insteadof an asset (Brown and Jones, 1994). As Caprivi farmersin¯uence future land use decisions, the prevailing nega-tive attitudes towards wildlife have the potential toundermine conservation e�orts unless crop and stockdepredation costs are reduced and a system of returningbene®ts from wildlife is implemented.

1.1. Human con¯icts with elephants

In recent years, con¯icts between humans and ele-phants have escalated throughout their range (Bell and

McShane-Calvzi, 1986; Hough, 1988; Mackie, 1992;Njoroge, 1992; Lindeque, 1993a,b; Thouless, 1994;Thouless and Sakwa, 1995; Tchamba, 1996). While ele-phant densities increase at a local scale, their range hasdiminished radically due to the expansion of humandominated landscapes, especially where agriculture isthe predominant land use practice (Parker and Graham,1989; Sukumar, 1991; Lindeque, 1995; Kiiru, 1995;Barnes, 1996; Tchamba, 1996).In the Caprivi region, increased elephant densities

over the past decade (Rodwell et al., 1999) and expand-ing agricultural areas (Lindeque, 1995) threaten toexpand the elephant/human interface. Reserves inCaprivi are inadequate to sustain the present numbersof elephants (Lindeque, 1993a), a situation now typicalfor many regions in Africa (Armbruster and Lande,1993; Whyte et al., 1998). As a result of an expandingelephant/human interface in East Caprivi, many ele-phants have habituated to elephant deterrent strategiessuch as drum beating, ®re, and even shooting in the air,methods that were traditionally successful for discoura-ging elephants from entering ®elds. This phenomenon istypical in other countries with elephant problems

0006-3207/00/$ - see front matter # 2000 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PI I : S0006-3207(99 )00108-1

Biological Conservation 93 (2000) 381±391

www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address:oconnell@bing.stanford.edu (C.E.O'Connell-Rodwell).

(Sukumar and Gadgil, 1988; Damiba and Ables, 1993;Tchamba, 1995; Ngure, 1995). Elephants in Caprivihave sometimes become aggressive towards farmerswho try to prevent them from entering ®elds, leaving thefarmers afraid to chase problem elephants.Where traditional methods of deterring elephants have

failed in other countries, both reducing elephant densities(culling, translocation) and exclusion (e.g. fencing) havebeen attempted (Sukumar, 1991; Mackie, 1992; Hoare,1995; Kangwana, 1995; Ngure, 1995; Osborn and Ras-mussen, 1995; Thouless and Sakwa, 1995). The success ofthese measures depends on complex factors attributedto both the ecology and behavior of elephants as well asthe human socio-political and economic environment.

1.2. Addressing the problem

The goal of this study was to determine the costs ofliving with wildlife and whether these costs could bereduced. From 1991 to 1995, we quanti®ed the natureand extent of crop and stock losses due to wildlifedepredations, with particular emphasis on elephant andpredator problems. We also documented seasonal ele-phant depredation trends and the spatial distribution ofwildlife/human con¯icts in the region. We tested severalstrategies for deterring elephants from entering agri-cultural areas, with the assistance of the local non-gov-ernmental organization, Integrated Rural Developmentand Nature Conservation (IRDNC) and the Ministry of

Environment and Tourism (MET) ®eld sta�. We discussthe success and failure of each experiment, as well as theeconomics of using deterrents. In addition, we explorethe importance of community attitudes towards wildlifeand how attitudes may be improved by reducing thecost of living with elephants. We discuss the emergingsocial, political and ecological forces that may con-tribute to or mitigate the problem of wildlife depreda-tion and ultimately in¯uence community attitudestoward wildlife conservation in the region.

1.3. Study area

The Caprivi region of Namibia is surrounded byAngola, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Botswana, lyingbetween the Okavango River in the west, and the Zam-bezi and Chobe Rivers in the east. The Kwando Riverdivides the region into the East and West Caprivi (Fig.1). The Caprivi region covers an area of approximately20,000 km2, and has the highest rainfall in Namibia,receiving 600±700 mm of rain a year, at an altitude of930±1100 m (Mendolsohn and Roberts, 1997). In addi-tion, most of Namibia's perennial rivers run throughCaprivi, making it the region of greatest potential forhigh wildlife densities and diversity. Caprivi is part of awildlife region that holds the single largest free rangingpopulation of elephants left in Africa (Craig, 1997). Upto approximately 5000 elephants can be found inCaprivi in the dry season, at a maximum density of

Fig. 1. Map of the East Caprivi and its surrounding borders. Protected and proclaimed areas are designated as well as areas where deterrent

experiments were conducted.

382 C.E. O'Connell-Rodwell et al. / Biological Conservation 93 (2000) 381±391

three elephants/km2 (Rodwell et al., 1999) in someareas.East Caprivi contains two National Parks (Mudumu

at 700 km2 and Mamili at 350 km2), which are part ofthe home range for many free ranging populations ofwildlife. Wildlife, and particularly elephants, are notcon®ned to East Caprivi parks and often utilize habitatoutside of these parks, competing with local commu-nities for the heavily utilized resources of water, foodand space.East Caprivi also has the second densest human

population in Namibia, estimated at 73,982 in the 1996census, (Mendolsohn, and Roberts, 1997) and thedominant indigenous people in this area depend onsubsistence farming and cattle herding. The high densityof humans and elephants depending on the same waterand land resources in parts of East Caprivi is one of the

reasons why the region has one of the highest incidenceof elephant/human con¯ict in the country (Lindeque,1993a).Although wildlife con¯icts with humans occur

throughout the Caprivi, we report only on the Kwandoregion of East Caprivi. The 14 villages that are reportedon here represent the areas of highest con¯ict betweenhumans and wildlife. These areas border national parksor regions of Botswana with high elephant densities(Fig. 2). The depredation data for the Kwando area isalso the most reliable, due to the fact that a standar-dized system of reporting con¯icts through CommunityGame Guards (CGGs) has been in place since thebeginning of this study. Wildlife con¯ict reporting wasinitiated much later in other areas of Caprivi, as theCGG program expanded. The CGG program was initi-ated as a means to facilitate greater participation by the

Fig. 2. Map of villages along the Kwando river included in this study. Elephant densities per km2 are designated along the borders of the study area.

Locations of wildlife con¯icts are indicated for 1994, including the percentage of incidents per problem species in all locations where con¯icts were

reported (only villages with more than ®ve claims are depicted).

C.E. O'Connell-Rodwell et al. / Biological Conservation 93 (2000) 381±391 383

community in problem animal monitoring and controlactivities. CGGs also play an important role in mon-itoring wildlife populations outside reserve lands.IRDNC plays a supervisory and ®nancial role in theprogram until the necessary skills and ®nancial meansare built up within the community to manage the CGGson their own. The 18 CGGs in this region work for andhave been appointed by their communities.

2. Methods

Crop and stock damage was determined by ques-tionnaire. The questions were designed to facilitatequantifying the approximate numbers and species ofanimals involved in the con¯ict, and the nature andextent of the depredation. Questionnaires were dis-tributed to CGGs in 14 villages within the Kwandoregion from 1991 to 1995.Farmers were instructed to report incidents of con¯ict

with wildlife to the CGGs in their village. CGGs wouldin turn inspect the claim and damage with the farmer,and submit the problem animal form to the MET ele-phant/human con¯icts researcher, or IRDNCs EastCaprivi Field Manager. For each incident of con¯ict, awildlife problem report was ®led. The project managersused a monthly patrolling and reporting scheme for afollow-up, on-site investigation for each claim submitted.From 1993 to 1995, the size of each agricultural ®eld

that incurred crop damage was estimated and repre-sented as 10 equal sized blocks. The number of blocksa�ected was converted into a percentage of the totalcrop. Spot checks were made by the Elephant/HumanCon¯icts Researcher and CGG Field Manager to ensureaccurate reporting. Prior to 1993, percentage of cropdamage was not recorded. All elephant damage claimsbefore 1993 were therefore estimated to be equivalent tothe average damage from the years 1993±1995, whichwas about 0.5 ha of damage per claim.Economic value was given to crop damage by con-

verting damaged areas into expected crop yields interms of bags of ground meal. Expected yield was 5±8(mean value of 6.5) bags of meal/ha. Expected yieldestimates were drawn from a similar study in Malawi(Bell and McShane-Caluzi, 1986) that also deriveddamage estimates. These values were in agreement withdata obtained from our own ®eld examinations. Bags ofmeal were valued at US$18.50/50 kg bag prior to 1994and US$28 after 1994 due to an increase in the marketprice. Di�erent crop types were combined due to theinherent di�culties of quantifying mixed crop types.Stock losses were quanti®ed using the market value of

replacing the stock animal in the year that the incidentoccurred. The market value for a head of cattle from theyears 1991±1993 was estimated at US$185. In 1994, thisvalue went up to US$296 due to an expansion of the

local beef market. The market value for a goat remainedat US$30 throughout the study period. CGG's wereinstructed to note whether stock depredation claimswere made for unprotected or protected stock. Othercosts of wildlife such as hardships and loss of human lifewere not quanti®ed. At the time of this study, theexchange rate was N$2.7 to 1US$.

2.1. Elephant deterrent experiments

All elephant deterrent strategies utilized low costtechnology and readily available materials, which wouldhave minimal impact on the environment. Some experi-ments were designed to be temporary and mobile deter-rents where elephant con¯icts were sporadic anddispersed within a village. Other experiments were sea-sonal installations to accommodate villages that movethe location of their crops each year. For villages thathad more permanent farms and consistent elephantcon¯icts, more permanent deterrent systems weredesigned.

2.1.1. Electrical fencing

Six electric fences were erected. Two of the fenceswere permanent and four were temporary seasonaldeterrents. Temporary fences were made from Poly-wire#, a polyurethane cord, threaded with strands ofwire, which was strung between trees on insulators. ThePolywire# fences were powered by a 12 V batterycharged by a 55 W solar panel. This system was used forthree of the temporary experiments, two in the village ofMashambo in the West Caprivi, and one outside ofKatima Mulilo. Each of these fences was less than 2 kmlong.Two, 2 m-high, permanent steel wire electric fences

were installed using two strands of 2 mm steel wireattached to trees or poles by insulators. A 12 V battery,charged by a 55 W solar panel powered the 40,000 Vfences. One fence was placed on the northern boundaryof Mahango Game Reserve (4 km) and the other,around the permanent agricultural area of LianshuluVillage (9.5 km). One 2 km steel fence was erected inChoyi as a temporary experiment.

2.1.2. Trip alarm experiments

Each alarm system was comprised of a 12 V, 10 W carsiren, a 12 V, 1.6 amp gel cell battery and a 10 s timer.Polyethylene cord was used to surround ®elds bymounting it either to existing fences, or onto trees andpoles using U-nails. The cord was attached to a tripswitch, which activated the car siren for 10 s. The alarmwas triggered when an elephant pulled on the cord whenentering a ®eld.The trip-alarms were tried in 10 villages, incorporating

approximately 44 farms, selected by urgency of the pro-blem and the willingness of the farmers to participate in

384 C.E. O'Connell-Rodwell et al. / Biological Conservation 93 (2000) 381±391

the experiment (Fig. 1). Farm plots with minimal con-¯ict were also protected with alarms to determine whe-ther habituation would occur more readily in heavilyraided areas versus areas with few con¯icts.

2.1.3. Elephant warning calls

Elephant warning calls, produced during times ofapparent natural distress events, were recorded atMushara water hole in Etosha National Park in 1994.Warning calls were recorded with a TEAC digitalrecorder and later analyzed using Canary sound analy-sis software. Warning calls were played back on a smallportable Sony tape cassette recorder at approximately15 m distances from each elephant herd. The low costcassette recorder was used to play calls because it wassimilar to what a rural farmer might own or have accessto. The transmitted sounds were in the range of 60 Hz(probably the third harmonic of the warning call).Warning calls were played back to elephant breeding

herds and bulls in three di�erent regions of the park inJuly 1995, to test the feasibility of using such a systemwith a trip-alarm to deter crop-raiding elephants in theCaprivi. The ®rst set of six trials was conducted atMushara water hole in the northeastern corner of thepark. We played warning calls to three elephant herdswhile they visited the water hole on three independentoccasions. The ®rst and second herds consisted of 19breeding herd members and two attendant bulls. Thesetwo herds were probably the same herd. The third herdconsisted of 30 breeding herd individuals and threeattendant bulls. We then played warning calls to threedi�erent lone bulls on three separate occasions.The second set of two trials was conducted at Gobaub

water hole, in the central region of the park. We playedback warning calls twice to one herd of 30 elephants dur-ing a single water hole visit. The third set of three trialswas conducted at Olifantsbad water hole, in the south-western region of the park. We played back warning callson one occasion while three separate groups of elephantswere visiting the water hole. The groups consisted of ®ve,nine and 15 elephants, respectively.

2.2. Economics of deterrents

Direct savings from the Lianshulu electric fence werecalculated by comparing damage records for the villagefrom previous years in relation to the damage after thedeterrent was in place, assuming that the same amountof loss would have been incurred if a deterrent had notbeen installed. Claims for individual farms were incon-sistent, and thus there was no clear way to comparedamage before and after the trip-alarms were installed.Savings calculated for trip-alarms were thus based onthe cost of one claim per farm that was successfullyprotected by an alarm, even though the alarm may haveworked several times during that season.

3. Results

3.1. Patterns and cost of wildlife damage

The overall number of elephant con¯icts did notincrease over the period of this study (Table 1), but thenumber of villages a�ected by elephant con¯ictsincreased, including more villages in 1994±1995 than inthe previous 3 years (Fig. 3). Con¯icts with elephantsoccurred most often where villages bordered protectedareas with very high densities of elephants (Fig. 2).The focal point of elephant problems in 1994 was in

the northern Kwando region (only villages with morethan ®ve claims reported), although the incidents ofcon¯ict were spread throughout the region (Fig. 2).Elephants from Mudumu and Mamili National Parksa�ected several villages in the southern region. Lian-shulu village was protected by an electric fence and thusdid not incur damage in 1994. Malengalenga incurredsubstantial elephant damage, but the damage depictedin Fig. 2 is presented relative to predator problems.Malengalenga had the highest overall number of wildlifecon¯icts, and incurred the greatest number of lion andhyaena problems than any other village examined.Elephants were responsible for 47% of the total number

of wildlife con¯icts between 1991 and 1994 (Fig. 4).Although elephants did not cause as much economicdamage as lions, due to themarket value of the losses, therewere over twice as many elephant claims as lion claims.Damage due to elephant depredation totaled US$39,200from 1991 to 1995 with a total of 432 claims (Table 1).Elephant con¯icts occurred over a larger geographic

area than predator con¯icts (Fig. 2), but lions wereresponsible for the greatest ®nancial costs attributed towildlife depredation between 1991 and 1994 (Fig. 4).Approximately 70% of lion claims were submitted forunprotected cattle. As the market value for cattle inCaprivi increased by 63% in 1994, losses incurred in thisone season were almost equivalent to the total lossesfrom 1991 to 1993 in the fourteen villages (Table 2).

Table 1

Cost of crop raiding by elephants from 1991 to 1995 and stock losses

due to predation from 1991 to 1994 representing data from 14 key

villages that incurred damages

Year Elephanta Predationb

1991 N$19,032 N$25,000

1992 N$26,596 N$44,160

1993 N$20,496 N$38,200

1994 N$19,032 N$82,400

1995 N$20,252

Total N$105,408 N$189,760

a N$244/claim).b Cattle price increase from N$500 to N$800 in 1994 due to

increased cattle market.

C.E. O'Connell-Rodwell et al. / Biological Conservation 93 (2000) 381±391 385

Predator depredation totaled US$70,280 between 1991and 1994 with a total of 399 claims (Table 1). Almost allof the predator problems (99%) occurred betweenMudumu and Mamili National Parks. Over half of the

predator problems (56%) in the region were due to liondepredation, concentrating in the villages borderingMamili National Park (Fig. 2).

3.2. Elephant crop deterrent experiments

Elephant deterrent strategies were tested in East andWest Caprivi with varying degrees of success (Fig. 1).The only deterrent that reduced wildlife losses on a vil-lage-wide scale was the long-term, large-scale method ofelectrical fencing in the village of Lianshulu. Approxi-mately 31 farms were protected inside the Lianshulufence. In 1994, there were no elephant claims in thisvillage, despite repeated attempts by elephants to accesscrops. In the previous 2 years, there had been approxi-mately 15 claims per year (Fig. 3). Damage claims in1995 were submitted from areas plowed outside theprotection of the fence. Forty-four farms in 10 villageswere protected by trip-alarms with varying degrees ofsuccess (Table 3). Trip-alarms were successful short-term measure for protecting individual farms, but didnot have an impact on the overall number of con¯ictsper year.

3.3. Warning calls

Warning call playback results are summarized inTable 4. In Trials 1±3 at Mushara, elephant herds ¯edfrom the site each of the three times the call was played.In Trials 1±6 for attendant and single bulls at Mushara,the bulls did not run away, but moved away from thewater hole brie¯y to investigate and then returned to thewater hole, showing no sign of disturbance. In Trials 1and 2 at Gobaub, elephant herds became aggressive,surrounding the hide where the calls were being played,rumbling repeatedly. They remained in the area investi-gating, then returned to drinking for 30 min before asecond playback was conducted. The herds became

Fig. 4. Percentage of economic loss per problem animal species com-

pared to the percentage of problem animal forms submitted per spe-

cies in the Kwando region of the East Caprivi between 1991 and 1994.

(Those species with claims of less than 5% are not included.

Table 2

Cost of stock raiding per problem predator species between 1991 and

1994. An economic value has been placed on stock losses for each year

of data based on the current market values

Stock Lion Hyaena Crocodile Wild dog Leopard

91±93 94 91±93 94 91±93 94 91±93 94 91±93 94

Cattlea 86 61 54 34 23 8 2

Calf 17 14 3 1

Goatb 4 84 3 1

Humanc 3 2

Total N$100,620 N$68,240 N$19,640 N$1,080 N$500

a Cattle price increase from N$500 to N$800 in 1994 due to

increased cattle markets in Caprivi.b Goat: market price=N$80.c Undetermined value.

Fig. 3. Number of elephant con¯icts per village between 1991 and 1995.

386 C.E. O'Connell-Rodwell et al. / Biological Conservation 93 (2000) 381±391

aggressive again before slowly leaving the area. In Trials1±3 at Oliphantsbad, the group of ®ve elephants listenedintently, remained at the water hole for 8 min beforeslowly leaving the area. The other two herds did not

seem to react. These elephants were leaving at the timeof the playback and may have been too far away to bea�ected by the recording.

3.4. Economics of deterrents

The electric fence at Lianshulu cost approximatelyUS$5,900 (O'Connell, 1995a). Lianshulu village hadapproximately 31 farms protected by the fence. In 1992,there were 14 claims submitted, valued at US$843. In1993, 17 claims were submitted, valued at US$1025. In1994, there were no claims due to the protection of theelectric fence.Trip-alarms were relatively inexpensive (US$78), thus

alarms cost less than the cost of one elephant depreda-tion claim (especially when the system cost is sharedbetween small neighboring farms). Based on 20 suc-cesses over the 1993±1995 period, an estimated US$1800was saved.

4. Discussion

Unlike predators, the treatment of elephants isstrongly in¯uenced by international conservation bodieswithin the Convention In the Trade of EndangeredSpecies (CITES). Until this situation is altered, con-servation bodies have a special responsibility to helpcommunities in dealing with this sensitive species. TheMinistry of Environment and Tourism (MET) ofNamibia has a policy to help rural farmers with wildlifecon¯icts (Nature Conservation Ordinance, 1975), espe-cially elephants, but most often does not have theresources to act, leaving communities resentful of wild-life and the government e�orts. Under traditional triballaw, a hunter was appointed from the community to killproblem elephants.As this authority is no longer granted, farmers depend

on the MET to help resolve this dilemma. As in otherregions of Namibia, there is a speci®c MET policy fordealing with the disposal of problem elephants (Linde-que, 1993b). This policy permits the shooting of crop

Table 3

Deterrent strategies summarizeda

Year Deterrent Village #Farms Results

1993 Electric fence Choyi 2 Untestedb

1993 Electric fence Mashambo 10 Positive

1993 Trip alarm Singalamwe 1 Positive

1993 Trip alarm E. ¯oodplains 1 Positive

1993 Two trip alarms Malengalenga 4 Positive

1994 Electric fence Lianshulu 31 >4�positive1994 Trip alarm Kongola 4 Area too large

1994 Trip alarm Choyi 7 >4�positive1994 Trip alarm Lizauli 1 Untested

1994 Trip alarm Sauzou 3 Untested

1994 Three trip alarms Malengalenga 10 Area too large

1994 Trip alarm Masikili 5 Untested

1994 Spot light Malengalenga 10 Area too large

1995 Electric fence Lianshulu 31 >3�positivec1995 Electric fence Mahango/

Kamachanga

0 Failured

1995 Electric fence Mashambo 10 Positivee

1995 Three trip alarms Lianshulu 2 Battery failure

1995 Trip alarm Sauzou 3 Positive

1995 Trip alarm Sesheke 2 Positive

1995 Trip alarm Sikwekwe/Choyi ? Positivef

1995 Spot light Kongola 3 Battery failure

1995 Spot light Choyi 1 Positiveg

a Total # deterrent experiments tried: 27; approximate # of farmers

a�ected: 141.b Untested experiments meant that elephants did not return to area

after the installation of deterrent.c The fence was broken twice by a breeding herd when a young bull

one crossed under the fence causing the herd follow. The CGGs ®xed

the fence. On two occasions elephants walked around the fence and

were stuck on the inside. CGGs and NET sta� were unable to chase

them out but they found their way out by themselves.d The Mahango electric fence failed, as it was not properly com-

pleted by ranger sta� or maintained.e The electric fence was e�ective at deterring elephants, however,

the elephants were able to walk around the fence.f CGGs carried the alarm to the ®elds that they slept in because the

area was too big for a permanent construction.g The spotlight was e�ective in one ®eld but the elephants went on

Table 4

Warning call play back experiments summarized, indicating wether the elephants were deterred from remaining at the water hole or nota

Location: Mushara Gobaib Oliphantsbad

Trials # bulls Deterred # indiv. Deterred # indiv. Deterred # indiv. Deterred

Trial 1 2 No 19 Yes 30 No 5 No

Trial 2 2 No 19 Yes 30 No 15 No

Trial 3 3 No 30 Yes 19 No

Trial 4 1 No

Trial 5 1 No

Trial 6 1 No

a The number of individuals (# indiv.) refers to the composition of breeding herds tested.

C.E. O'Connell-Rodwell et al. / Biological Conservation 93 (2000) 381±391 387

raiding elephants in extreme cases where elephants havehabituated to deterrents. The policy involves a series ofprotocols, starting ®rst with the involvement of theprofessional hunter holding a concession in the area,and ending with the availability of a quali®ed ranger onsite and the signature of the permanent secretary. Theprocess imposes undue time constraints in a situationrequiring immediate action. Such di�culties render thepresent MET policy for problem elephant managementine�ective. (O'Connell, 1995b).As a result of this ine�ective policy, farmers refer to

elephants as ``the government's cattle'', removing them-selves from all personal and communal responsibility todefend their property against crop raiding elephants.This attitude enhances elephant/human con¯icts andfrustration with the government. The lack of supportfrom frustrated communities could undermine thee�orts of the MET to conserve elephants within andoutside protected areas.Elephant con¯icts have not increased in total number,

but the number of villages a�ected by elephant con¯ictshas increased. The fact that the spatial expansion ofcon¯ict did not result in an increase in the total numberof con¯icts might be due to the e�ect of deterrentexperiments. The Lianshulu electric fence might haveredistributed elephant depredation to neighboring vil-lages such as Sauzou and Samodono, which had no ele-phant crop depredation prior to the installation of thefence (Fig. 3). The expanding range of con¯ict might alsohave been due to a combination of expanding agri-cultural areas and an in¯ux of elephants from Botswana.The variable quality of crops due to variable seasonal

rainfall patterns throughout the region could also in¯u-ence spatial patterns of crop raiding, and ultimately, thetotal number of claims each year. As rainfall patternsare extremely variable and localized, the timing andamount of rain most likely in¯uences crop quality pervillage per annum.Lion and other predator problems could be greatly

reduced simply by protecting stock at night. Tradition-ally, young boys within the community tended herds.When Namibia gained independence in 1990, increasedaccess to schools may have had a negative impact onstock protection as herds are now left to wonder intopredator areas and are often left unprotected at night.Assistance with predator problems should only be con-sidered if the appropriate measures have been taken toprotect stock.

4.1. Success of deterrents

Over the course of 3 years, we experimented withmultiple methods of keeping elephants out of farm-lands. Some of these methods succeeded in reducingcrop losses due to wildlife depredation and indirectlyplayed a role in reducing hostilities toward the MET

and wildlife. At the same time, communication, METresponse levels and communities' e�orts to takeresponsibility for the problem was improved.Of the elephant deterrent strategies that we tried, we

think that only electrical fencing around large farmingareas has the potential for long term use, with highlevels of maintenance and some system of punishingelephant fence breakers such as shooting repeatedo�enders. Alarms are a good short-term solution forindividual farmers but individual based deterrent meth-ods will probably not reduce overall con¯ict levels at thevillage-wide scale. During the course of the experiments,there was some indication that habituation to deterrentswould pose a threat to the success of any long termunvarying e�orts to exclude elephants from agriculturalareas.

4.1.1. Electrical fencing

The electric fence at Lianshulu seemed to be particu-larly successful because there were not many bull ele-phants in the area, and breeding herds seemed morehesitant to take the risk of getting shocked. The phe-nomenon of bulls taking more risks and learning how todisable fences has been found in other areas of Africaand Asia (Sukumar and Gadgil, 1988; Sukumar, 1991;Thouless and Sakwa, 1995). The Mahango GameReserve fence failed and was destroyed by elephants dueto lack of maintenance. It is possible that electric fen-cing in Mahango Game Reserve would always fail dueto the fact that the reserve's population is made upalmost exclusively of bull elephants. In the future, fen-ces should completely surround an agricultural area aselephants quickly learn to walk around fences that arenot closed.A Polywire# electrical fence proved to be an e�ective

short-term solution to a small farm in the West Caprivi,when the entire area was enclosed. Steel wire electricalfencing proved to be more durable, however, thoughmore di�cult and expensive to install. Single strandfences did not work as the Caprivi is not wet enough toprovide su�cient grounding to generate an e�ectiveshock to an elephant.

4.1.2. Trip-alarms

Short trip-alarms (maximum 1 km) with the alarmplaced in the middle of the trip-line appeared to havebetter success than longer trip-lines, as the sound of thesiren seemed most e�ective within approximately 500 m.The main problem with alarm experiments was thatmany of the areas a�ected by elephants were too largeto protect with the alarms. Multiple alarms were tried,but alarms placed in small farms across distinct ele-phant entry paths were most e�ective. One negativebyproduct of the alarms was that elephants were likelyto move into a neighboring unprotected farm. Thiswould also be the case, however, for most other indivi-

388 C.E. O'Connell-Rodwell et al. / Biological Conservation 93 (2000) 381±391

dual deterrents such as beating drums or shooting a gunin the air. A cost e�ective recharging station for bat-teries was designed (O'Connell, 1995a) as rechargingbatteries became an important limiting factor to deterrentsuccess.The traditional practice of sleeping in ®elds has been

abandoned in many areas. This social change has beenattributed in part to an increase in personal possessionsand increased vandalism making it di�cult for farmersto move to their ®elds seasonally. Some farmers do notfeel safe sleeping in their ®elds due to heightened habi-tuation and even aggression on the part of the elephanttoward traditional deterrents such as beating drums andshooting guns in the air. In areas where farmers still sleptin their ®elds, trip alarms developed an additional pur-pose. As farmers often had their sleeping huts at the farend of their ®eld, the entering point for elephants wassometimes far enough away that the farmer was unawareof their presence until much of the crop was eaten. Tripalarms served as an important early warning tool for thefarmer to wake up and chase the elephants out of his®eld. One farmer even sought to buy an alarm privately.There were several CGG reports that habituation mightbecome a problem in areas that are heavily frequentedby large numbers of elephants. They felt that elephantsin these areas were learning quickly that a real threatdid not follow an alarm.

4.1.3. Elephant warning calls

Preliminary results suggest that the use of natural airborne elephant warning calls to chase elephants awayfrom farms may not be e�ective, although more experi-mentation is needed to determine whether these resultsare signi®cant. Trials 1±3 at Mushara may have beensuccessful because the warning calls used for all trialswere originally recorded from these herds, indicatingthat elephants may be capable of discerning individualidentities from calls. If individual call recognition is animportant factor in the e�ectiveness of alarm call play-back deterrents, then such deterrents will be of limiteduse in areas such as Caprivi which supports a largepopulation of migratory elephants.

4.2. Economics of deterrents

The Lianshulu electric fence and the trip-alarm inChoyi provided projected savings of US$3900 in 1994.The total cost of elephant damage for 1994 was esti-mated at US$7050. Just these two experiments made upa saving of over half of the total elephant depredationcost for that year. If the village of Lianshulu was pro-tected from incurring the same amount of elephantdamage in 1994 as it incurred in the previous two years,the village would have saved US$1360 (15 claims), or23% of the total cost of the fence. Based on the expec-ted cost of damage projected for 1995±1997, the com-

munity could have saved the cost of installing the fencein about 4 years.In 1994, seven bull elephants repeatedly damaged at

least seven farms in an area of Choyi. A trip-alarm wasplaced across the path of this group of elephants and thealarm was set o� on at least four occasions, successfullydeterring the bulls for the rest of the season. The savingsfrom this alarm may have been as much as US$2465above the cost of the alarm.

4.3. Attitudes

Community support was an important component oferecting and maintaining deterrents. It took over a yearto get the village of Lianshulu to agree to participate inthe electric fencing experiment, due to the community'ssuspicion that the government was trying to enlargeMudumu National Park boundaries by placing thefence at the borders of the village agricultural area,rather then around the perimeter of the park. Anotherdi�culty was that we acted under the misperceptionthat communities act as whole units with representa-tives. Thus, some of the initial meetings did not targetthe major stakeholders in the project (the farmers)which caused a delay in cooperation.In a survey designed to determine whether farmers

viewed our deterrents as a successful method of redu-cing elephant depredation, we found that the forumonly provided a mechanism for communities to venttheir anger. This anger was sometimes misdirected or are¯ection of frustration over previous unresolved wild-life con¯ict. It appears as though negative attitudes willtake some time to change, regardless of any currentreduction of con¯ict with wildlife.Throughout the project, key members of MET and

IRDNC demonstrated a strong willingness to sharefarmer's problems with wildlife depredation. Thisplayed an important role in building trust within thecommunities for the government.

4.4. Community based natural resource managementschemes (CBNRMS)

Namibia, as well as other African countries, haveestablished a system for returning bene®ts from wildlifeto rural communities within CBNRMS (Western, 1989;Lewis et al., 1990; McShane, 1990; Brown and Jones,1994; Jones, 1995; MET, 1995; Ashley, 1996; Ashleyand LaFranchi, 1997; Lewis and Alpart, 1997). Namibiahas recently established a conservancy policy (MET,1995), allowing conditional rights over wildlife by com-munities in rural areas. These strategies were designed tohelp motivate people in rural areas to protect wildliferesources outside protected areas and to discouragepoaching inside protected areas (Lewis et al., 1990;Brown and Jones, 1994). In this concept, the parks would

C.E. O'Connell-Rodwell et al. / Biological Conservation 93 (2000) 381±391 389

provide a primary breeding ground for communal wild-life in the surrounding areas.The Caprivi has signi®cant potential in terms of

establishing a local economy based on its rich but threa-tened wildlife resources (Barnes, 1995; Ashley andLaFranchi, 1997). Elephants have a high potential eco-nomic value for their attraction to the growing eco-tour-ism industry and hunting concessions, a value that wouldexceed the estimated costs of elephant depredation in theEast Caprivi (Ashley and O'Connell, 1998). The con-servancy policy in Namibia is a major ®rst step towardreturning wildlife-related bene®ts to communities.Although some indirect bene®ts from wildlife have beenreceived through bed night levies and local communitytourism projects in the region, more widespread bene®tsare still in the developmental stages (Ashley, 1996).While it is important to focus on returning bene®ts fromwildlife related revenues, it is vital that con¯icts withwildlife also be addressed, as increased community ben-e®ts do not necessarily translate into individual compen-sation for wildlife depredations (Ngure, 1995).In our view, rapidly growing human populations

threaten traditional natural resource management prac-tices by putting heavier pressures on limited resourcesand by fragmenting what may have once been smallcooperative units. We feel that one of the biggest mis-conceptions regarding CBNRMSs is the assumption thatmodern rural communities function as units. Given all ofthe changes in traditional village life, the greatest chal-lenge is actually getting a community to work as a unit.The term ``community'' is a very loosely de®ned entity, acondition that needs to be recognized when facing thechallenges of implementing CBNRMS programs.

5. Conclusion

If rural people continue to practice agriculture inhabitats shared with elephants, it is likely that con¯ictswith elephants cannot be eradicated, only reduced.Modern conservation strategists have con¯icting viewson whether fences should separate wildlife from humancommunities. In the course of our con¯ict mitigationexperiments, it became evident that either elephantswould have to be contained or humans would have tobe contained in order to resolve elephant/human con-¯icts where agriculture is practiced.If the conservation community is striving toward

replacing the traditional conservation paradigm ofwildlife islands in a human dominated landscape, wemust be clear about what we are proposing to replace itwith. The results of our study lead us to conclude thatthere are primarily two community conservation modelswhen elephants are a part of the system. One is tocommit to a comprehensive system of crop protectionand the other is to eventually replace subsistence farm-

ing with an economy based entirely on wildlife relatedrevenues.The model of crop protection taken to its ultimate

conclusion would mean islands of human settlement inan elephant dominated landscape. If this is the objec-tive, community conservation programs will have tocommit to long term crop protection plans that accom-modate most or all of the farms in any one village,including commitment to deterrent maintenance. Elec-trical fencing is probably the only viable long-termoption, unless new methods are developed in the future.Electrical fencing requires high maintenance and theelimination of fence breaking elephants. If elephants areto survive outside of protected lands, then it is vital thatconservation management plans seriously address longterm protection of rural communities' crops or includepractical proposals for helping communities make atransition from agricultural to wildlife based economiesin a realistic time frame.

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by the European Union,MET, United States Agency for International Develop-ment, World Wildlife Fund (US), IRDNC, NamibiaNature Foundation, University of California, Davis,and a Vocational Fellowship from Rotary Interna-tional. We are grateful to the Namibian governmentand the MET for allowing us to conduct this study. Wethank Judy Storm, Annatjie Bonthuys, Grant Burtonand Marie Holstenson for their logistical support andThompson Radio and Pro-Sec Securities for their tech-nical support. Malan Lindeque, Jo Tagg, Chris Brown,Margaret Jacobsohn and Garth Owen-Smith providedmuch needed advice and administrative assistance. Wethank Beaven Munali, Janet Matota, Loveness Shiitaand all the CGGs for their data collection and ®eldassistance. We are grateful to Lynette Hart, Bill Hamil-ton, Peter Marler, Marcel Rejmanek and anonymousreviewers for their comments and suggestions.

References

Armbruster, P., Lande, R., 1993. A population viability analysis for

African elephant (Loxodonta africana): how big should reserves be.

Conservation Biology 7 (3), 602±610.

Ashley, C., 1996. Incentives for biodiversity conservation and sustain-

able use: land use options in Namibia. DEA Research Discussion

Paper No. 11. Directorate of Environmental A�airs, Ministry of

Environment and Tourism, Windhoek, Namibia.

Ashley, C., LaFranchi, C., 1997. Livelihood strategies of rural house-

holds in Caprivi: implications for conservancies and natural

resource management. DEA Research Discussion Paper No. 20.

Directorate of Envirnmental A�airs, Ministry of Environment and

Tourism, Windhoek, Namibia.

390 C.E. O'Connell-Rodwell et al. / Biological Conservation 93 (2000) 381±391

Ashley, C., O'Connell, C.E., 1998. Can the ®nancial bene®ts of wildlife

outweigh the costs for Caprivi households?. In: Barnard, P. (Ed.),

Biological Diversity in Namibia Ð A Country Study. Namibian

National Biodiveristy Task Force, Windhoek, pp. 268.

Barnes, J.I., 1995. The value of non-agricultural land use in some

Namibian communal areas: a data base for planning. DEA

Research Discussion Paper No. 6. Directorate of Environmental

A�airs, Ministry of Environment and Tourism,Windhoek, Namibia.

Barnes, R.F.W., 1996. The con¯ict between humans and elephants in

the central African forests. Mammal Rev 26 (2/3), 67±80.

Bell, R.H.V., McShane-Caluzi, E. (Eds.), 1986. Conservation and

Wildlife Management in Africa. US Peace Corp, Washington, DC.

Brown, C., Jones, B., 1994. A strategic community-based environ-

mental and development plan. Internal Report. Department of

Environmental A�airs. Ministry of Environment and Tourism,

Windhoek, Namibia, pp 1±41.

Craig, C., 1997. The ELESMAP project. Report. Namibia Nature

Foundation, Namibia.

Damiba, T.E., Ables, E.D., 1993. Promising future for an elephant

population- a case study in Burkina Faso. West Africa. Oryx 27 (2),

97±103.

Hoare, R., 1995. Options for the control of elephants in con¯ict with

people. Pachyderm 19, 54±63.

Hough, J.L., 1988. Obstacles to e�ective management of con¯icts

between national parks and surrounding human communities in

developing countries. Environmental Conservation 15 (2), 129±135.

Jones, B.T.B., 1995. Wildlife management, utilization, and tourism in

communal areas: bene®ts to communities and improved resource

management. DEA Research Discussion Paper No. 5. Directorate

of Envirnmental A�airs, Ministry of Environment and Tourism,

Windhoek, Namibia.

Kangwana, K., 1995. Human±elephant con¯ict: the challenge ahead.

Pachyderm 19, 11±14.

Kiiru, W., 1995. The current status of human-elephant con¯icts in

Kenya. Pachyderm 19, 15±19.

Lewis, D.M., Alpert, P., 1997. Trophy hunting and wildlife conserva-

tion in Zambia. Con. Biol 11 (1), 59±68.

Lewis, D.M., Kaweche, G., Mwenya, A., 1990. Wildlife conservation

outside protected areas-lessons from an experiment in Zambia.

Conservation Biology 4 (2), 171±179.

Lindeque, M., 1993a. Namibian elephant conservation and manage-

ment plan. Internal Report. Ministry of Environment and Tourism,

Windhoek, Namibia.

Lindeque, M., 1993b. National policy for elephants in Namibia.

Internal Report. Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Windhoek,

Namibia.

Lindeque, M., 1995. Conservation and management of elephants in

Namibia. Pachyderm 19, 49±53.

McShane, T.O., 1990. Wildlands and human needs: resource use in an

African protected area. Landscape and Urban Planning 19, 145±158.

Mackie, C., 1992. Implementing electrical fencing projects on com-

munal lands of Zimbabwe. WWF Project Paper No XX.

Mendolsohn, J., Roberts, C., 1997. An environmental pro®le and atlas

of Caprivi. Directorate Of Environmental A�airs, Namibia.

MET, 1995. Namibia's policy on wildlife management, utilization and

tourism in communal areas. Ministry of Environment and Tourism.

Windhoek, Namibia.

Nature Conservation Ordinance, 1975. No. 4 of 1975, Act 27/'86.

Naughton-Trevers, L., 1998. Predicting patterns of crop damage by

wildlife around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Con. Biol 12 (1),

156±158.

Ngure, N., 1995. People±elephant con¯ict management in Tsavo,

Kenya. Pachyderm 19, 20±25.

Njoroge, N., 1992. Human±elephant interactions. Seeking remedies

for con¯icts. SWARA 15 (6), 25±27.

O'Connell, C.E., 1995a. Caprivi elephant/human con¯icts project.

Final Technical Report. Ministry of Environment and Tourism,

Namibia, Namibia Nature Foundation, USAID/WWF.

O'Connell, C.E., 1995b. Elephant±human con¯icts: a management

recommendation for Namibia. Internal report. Ministry of Envir-

onment and Tourism, Namibia, USAID/WWF.

Osborn, F.V., Rasmussen, L.E.L., 1995. Evidence for the e�ectiveness

of an oles-resin Capsicum aerosol as a repellant against wild ele-

phants in Zimbabwe. Pachyderm 20, 55±64.

Parker, I.S.C., Graham, A.D., 1989. Men, elephants and competition.

Symp. Zool. Soc. Lond 61, 241±252.

Rodwell, T.C., Grobler, M., Tagg, J., in press. Wildlife resources in

the Caprivi, Namibia: The results of an aerial census in 1994 in

comparison with past surveys. Modaqua.

Sibanda, B.M.C., Omwega, A.K., 1996. Some re¯ections on con-

servation, sustainable development and equitable sharing of bene®ts

from wildlife in Africa: The case of Kenya and Zimbabwe. South

African J. Wild. Res 26 (4), 175±181.

Sukumar, R., 1991. The management of large mammals in relation to

male strategies and con¯ict with people. Biol. Conserv. 55, 93±102.

Sukumar, R., Gadgil, M., 1988. Male-female di�erences in foraging

on crops by Asian elephants. Anim. Behav 36 (4), 1233±1235.

Tchamba, M.N., 1995. The problem elephants of Kaele: a challenge for

elephant conservation in northern Cameroon. Pachyderm 19, 26±32.

Tchamba, M.N., 1996. History and present status of the human/ele-

phant con¯ict in the Waza-Logone region, Cameroon, West Africa.

Biol. Conserv. 75, 35±41.

Thouless, C.R., Sakwa, J., 1995. Shocking elephants: fences and crop

raiders in Laikipia district, Kenya. Biol. Conserv 72, 99±107.

Western, D., 1989. Conserving without parks: wildlife in the rural

landscape. In: Western, D., Pearl, M.C. (Eds.), Conservation for the

Twenty-®rst Century. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 158±

165.

Whyte, I., van Aarde, R., Pimm, S.L., 1998. Managing the elephants

of Kruger National Park,. Anim. Conserv 1, 77±83.

C.E. O'Connell-Rodwell et al. / Biological Conservation 93 (2000) 381±391 391