Wildlife impacts and changing climate pose compounding threats to human food security

Beyond Crop-Raiding: Unravelling the Broader Impacts of Human-Wildlife Conflict on Rural Communities

This paper examines the impacts of human-wildlife conflict (HWC) in the Kakum Conservation Area (KCA), Ghana. The primary focus is on crop-raiding by elephants. Using ethnographic methodologies, the findings shed light on the broader impacts of HWC in rural communities. These include food insecurity characterized by a notable decline in the quality and quantity of food accessible to individuals and families affected by crop-raiding. The study also underscores the negative impacts on mental and physical wellbeing as residents contend with stress, anxiety and fear due to crop-raiding and encounters with elephants. Furthermore, this research uncovers how coping mechanisms employed by locals in response to these challenges may result in problem drinking. Also, efforts taken to mitigate crop-raiding unintentionally result in health consequences for farmers who face risks of contracting diseases such as malaria and suffer from sleep deprivation due to guarding their fields at night. More importantly, this study provides an in-depth examination of the broader vulnerabilities caused by HWC which are often ignored and underscores the importance of looking beyond the direct impacts in HWC hotspots like KCA.

Testing the Effectiveness of the "Smelly" Elephant Repellent in Controlled Experiments in Semi-Captive Asian and African Savanna Elephants

Crop-raiding by elephants is one of the most prevalent forms of human-elephant conflict and is increasing with the spread of agriculture into wildlife range areas. As the magnitude of conflicts between people and elephants increases across Africa and Asia, mitigating and reducing the impacts of elephant crop-raiding has become a major focus of conservation intervention. In this study, we tested the responses of semi-captive elephants to the "smelly" elephant repellent, a novel olfactory crop-raiding mitigation method. At two trial sites, in Zambia and Thailand, African elephants (Loxodonta africana) and Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) were exposed to the repellent, in order to test whether or not they entered an area protected by the repellent and whether they ate the food provided. The repellent elicited clear reactions from both study groups of elephants compared to control conditions. Generalised linear models revealed that the elephants were more alert, sniffed more, and vocalised more when they encountered the repellent. Although the repellent triggered a response, it did not prevent elephants from entering plots protected by the repellent or from eating crops, unlike in trials conducted with wild elephants. Personality played a role in responses towards the repellent, as the elephants that entered the experimental plots were bolder and more curious individuals. We conclude that, although captive environments provide controlled settings for experimental testing, the ecological validity of testing human-elephant conflict mitigation methods with captive wildlife should be strongly considered. This study also shows that understanding animal behaviour is essential for improving human-elephant coexistence and for designing deterrence mechanisms. Appreciating personality traits in elephants, especially amongst "problem" elephants who have a greater propensity to crop raid, could lead to the design of new mitigation methods designed to target these individuals.

The unequal burden of human-wildlife conflict

Human-wildlife conflict is one of the most pressing sustainable development challenges globally. This is particularly the case where ecologically and economically important wildlife impact the livelihoods of humans. Large carnivores are one such group and their co-occurrence with low-income rural communities often results in real or perceived livestock losses that place increased costs on already impoverished households. Here we show the disparities associated with the vulnerability to conflict arising from large carnivores on cattle (Bos taurus) globally. Across the distribution of 18 large carnivores, we find that the economic vulnerability to predation losses (as measured by impacts to annual per capita income) is between two and eight times higher for households in transitioning and developing economies when compared to developed ones. This potential burden is exacerbated further in developing economies because cattle keepers in these areas produce on average 31% less cattle meat per animal than in developed economies. In the lowest-income areas, our estimates suggest that the loss of a single cow or bull equates to nearly a year and a half of lost calories consumed by a child. Finally, our results show that 82% of carnivore range falls outside protected areas, and five threatened carnivores have over one third of their range located in the most economically sensitive conflict areas. This unequal burden of human-carnivore conflict sheds light on the importance of grappling with multiple and conflicting sustainable development goals: protecting life on land and eliminating poverty and hunger.

Elephant Scar Prevalence in the Kasigau Wildlife Corridor, Kenya: Echoes of Human-Elephant Conflict

Human-elephant conflict (HEC) compromises crop security and threatens elephant conservation. Most commonly, HEC manifests as crop-foraging as elephants modify natural foraging strategies to incorporate crops. Farmers may retaliate by frightening or harming elephants, leaving scars from inflicted wounds. We assessed the prevalence and distribution of scars on the bodies of African savanna elephants (Loxodonta africana) observed in the Kasigau Wildlife Corridor (KWC), part of the Greater Tsavo Ecosystem of Kenya, where conflict is prevalent. We surmised that scars on the body are largely a result of HEC as opposed to scars on the rump or head, which we attributed primarily to elephant-elephant conflict. We hypothesized that: (1) male elephants would have more scars than females; (2) older males would be more likely to have scars than younger males; and (3) most scars would be located on the bodies of elephants. We assessed scars from a photographic catalogue of elephants from the KWC. In line with our hypotheses, male elephants were more likely to have scars than females (32% of males compared to 6% of females); older males had significantly more scars than younger males (61% compared to 24%); and the majority of scars (89%) were located on the body. Scar presence may be useful as an animal-centered indicator to estimate the prevalence and demographic patterns of HEC.