PARTICIPATORY ELEPHANT MONITORING AND HUMAN ELEPHANT CONFLICT IN THE BAGHMARA

BALPAKRAM LANDSCAPE, SOUTH GARO HILLS, MEGHALAYA

A Report detailing the activities undertaken between June 2005 and December 2007

SAMRAKSHAN TRUSTMEGHALAYA FIELD OFFICE

2

The Team (in alphabetical order)

Anirban Datta-RoyBappi Marak

Bensen SangmaIdalisha P. Marak

John Fernando ShiraKarthik T

Nimesh Ved Orak R. Marak

Susanto Sangma Yash Shethia

Aking informants –Adal Sangma

Balment MominBandi Marak

Chaban MarakChenang Momin

George Kingston MarakGostin SangmaJahanal Marak

Jhon MarakJhulum Marak

Kredding MarakKadith Sangma,Kendesh Shira

Rakson SangmaRollingson Marak

Willibersh SangmaWinnarson Marak

3

Suggested Citation:

Datta-Roy, A., Karthik, T., Nimesh Ved and Yash Shethia. (2008) Participatory elephantmonitoring and human elephant conflict in the Baghmara Balpakram Landscape, SouthGaro Hills, Meghalaya: A Report detailing the activities undertaken between June 2005 and December 2007. Samrakshan Trust Meghalaya Field Office.

4

S. No. Title PageSummary 4

1 Introduction

1.1 Baghmara Balpakram Landscape 5

1.2 Elephant Conservation 6

1.3 Elephants in the Garo Hills 7

1.4 Samrakshan’s initiative in the south Garo Hills 8

2 Methodology

2.1 Elephant Monitoring 10

2.2 Aking mapping 11

2.3 Analysis 11

3 Results

3.1 Locations of elephant visits 12

3.2 Temporal pattern of elephant visits 13

3.3 Elephant presence in different akings 14

3.4 Elephants and conflict 16

3.5 Solitary animals or herds 18

3.6 Group sizes 20

3.7 Time of visits 21

3.8 Movement of elephants across Simsang 21

4 Discussion 25

5 Future Initiatives 27

6 References 28

7 Acknowledgements 31

Appendices 32

5

SUMMARY

The Baghmara Balpakram Landscape in the south Garo Hills district of Meghalaya is one of the most important areas for the survival of the endangered Asian elephant. This area falls within the Garo Hills Elephant Reserve and supports the second largest population of elephants in northeastern India. This population is continually under threat from an expanding human population and habitat degradation; this is further hastened by unplanned cultivation, expansion of orchards and ill-conceived development plans such as mining. Increasing contact between humans and elephants has given rise to increased levels of Human Elephant Conflict, which has always existed to some extent.Samrakshan Trust started a unique participatory monitoring method for detecting elephant presence in akings by trained informants in 11 villages. The purpose was to obtain basic information on elephant presence in a part of the landscape and to help design future land-use changes that would be conservation friendly. Participatory monitoring for more than 2 years revealed many important trends on the seasonality, levels of conflict, differences in groups sizes and differences between herds and solitary animals. As part of this exercise 36 villages or akings within the project areas were tracked and maps produced for the first time.It was also realised that information on elephants needed from areas other than human-dominated areas was still lacking. The participatory monitoring exercise has been able to establish just the basic information. However information on elephant movement across community forests, orchards and other non-inhabited areas of the aking remain unknown. The next phase of the elephant monitoring program will aim to gain comprehensive knowledge on the use of aking lands by elephants.

6

1. Introduction

1.1 Baghmara Balpakram Landscape:

The northeast Indian state of Meghalaya is situated in the Indo Burma biodiversity hotspot (Myers, 2000; Conservation International, 2007).The persistence of large stretches of old growth and secondary forests which are community owned has helped retain the immense faunal and floral richness of this region. The State of the Forest report (FSI, 2001) provides a figure of 9,496 sq. km. as the forest cover for Meghalaya state. This is 42.34% of the total geographic area of the state and one of the highest for any state in India. Within Meghalaya, the Garo Hills region situated in the western part of the state neighbouring Bangladesh, is particularly rich in natural values. Barring very small plots of government owned lands that have been designated as Reserve Forests, National Parks or Wildlife Sanctuaries, the rest of the landscape in the Garo Hills is a conglomeration of akings (roughly translated as a clan kingdom). These akings continue to harbour large patches of community managed forests. These patches of community owned forests have helped maintain contiguity of forest cover across most of the Garo Hills. Survey and research in this region has, however been scanty. Existing records indicate the presence of at least 85 species of mammals (Das et. al., 1995), 23 species of amphibians, 33 species of reptiles and 199 species of avifauna (Pawar and Birand, 2001). This is however, even by the admissions of the authors, a conservative estimate and it is very likely that there may be many species of fauna that have not yet been recorded. Meghalaya has one of the largest and densest Asian Elephant (Elephas maximus) populations in India. Other large animals of significance include, Gaur (Bos gaurus), Serow (Capricornis sumatraensis), Goral (Nemorhaedus goral), Tiger (Panthera tigris), Hoolock Gibbon (Hylobates hoolock) and lesser cats such as the Clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa). The tropical climate and the high precipitation support diverse flora, including the endemic insectivorous Nepenthes khasiana(pitcher plant) and a large variety of orchids (estimated 325 species). The few studies on cataloguing the flora of this region have found it to be of immense richness (Haridasan and Rao, 1985). Awasthi (1999) has remarked that Meghalaya is the richest botanical region in

India.

Figure 1.1. Location of the Baghmara Balpakram Landscape in northeastern India

The Baghmara Balpakram Landscape, the focus of our conservation effort, is about 550 sq. km. having the Balpakram National Park (220 sq. km.) to its north and Bangladesh to its south. To its west and east lie the Simsang river and West Khasi Hills district respectively. The landscape consists of two

major protected areas: the Balpakram national park and the Baghmara reserve forest (44.4 sq. km.). The Siju WLS, a small (~6 sq. km.) but strategically located protected area also forms a part of the Baghmara Balpakram Landscape. The rest of the landscape consists of 36 akings dominated by the local Garo tribe. Each aking has one or more gittims or hamlets loosely spaced around a matrix of shifting cultivation plots, orchards, sedentary agricultural fields, water bodies and community forests. This is one of the few tracts of forest habitat in

7

Meghalaya that has the best long-term possibility of conservation of wildlife in general and mega fauna such as Asian elephant in particular.

1.2 Elephant Conservation:

The Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) is designated as ‘Endangered’ by IUCN (2007). Its populations have seen drastic declines in most of its range countries. A decade old estimate by Daniels (1998) puts the numbers of wild Asian elephants at 38,110 – 59,735 animals. The Indian sub-continent has nearly 66.4% of all wild elephants within which India accounts for 57% of the total. The Indo-Malayan population inhabiting the range countries of India (northeast), Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, Borneo and Indonesia accounts for 29.3% of all Asian elephants. Within India, Sukumar and Santiapillai (1996) identified four major elephant zones. These are:

North-western India (~750) population which is primarily concentrated around the Rajaji and Corbett National Parks and other adjoining Reserve Forests.

North-eastern India (9000 – 12,000) population is primarily concentrated in the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Meghlalaya and Assam with scattered small populations present in the other states.

Central India (~2500) elephant population is restricted to the states of Bihar, Jharkhand and Orissa with contiguity with the southern West Bengal population.

South India (~10,000) has at least ten distinct populations with the largest population of 6000 inhabiting the Nilgiri hills and eastern ghats.

Choudhury (1999) has analysed the elephant population in north-east India in great detailand has estimated the total population to be 11,000. He described 14 distinct populations of the Asian elephant in north-eastern India along with the adjoining countries of Nepal, Bhutan and parts of Myanmar and Bangladesh:

North Bank (of Brahmaputra) population (3250) restricted mostly to the state of Arunachal Pradesh, northern Assam, northern West Bengal and Nepal and Bhutan. This population also has the maximum available elephant habitat as well as individual numbers.

South Bank – eastern areas (1200) is one of the several large populations to the south of the Brahmaputra river. This population is said to have separated from the North Bank population in the 1970’s and currently occupied parts of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam and Nagaland.

South Bank – central areas (2950) includes the large contiguous elephant population of Kaziranga NP, Karbi Anglong and North Cachar Hills, part of Kamrup district and north eastern Meghalaya which includes a small portion of the Khasi hills (Ri-bhoi district).

South Bank – western areas (3001) is the second largest contiguous population in north-east India and includes the Garo and Khasi Hills and western Kamrup district.

Dhansiri-Intanki (332) – parts of Karbi Anglong and Nagaland Barail–Jaintia Hills (37) – Cachar in Assam and Jaintia Hills in south east Meghalaya Karimganj (8) Hailakandi (2+) Laokhowa – Burhachapori (13) – Small population in two adjacent reserves of Assam Orang (10) Amcheng Hills (36) Hollongapar (12) Eastern Manipur (<50)

8

Tripura and Mizoram (194) – This is a population contiguous with the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. Tripura reports a population of 184.

Elephants in the Garo Hills belong to the South Bank (western) population, forming the second largest population in the northeast. They are spread over an area of 6850 sq. km. Project Elephant (1993) has also recognised the importance of this elephant population and designated 3500 sq. km. area as the Garo Hills Elephant Reserve. It has been suggested that a minimum of 1000 animals is required for the long-term survival of an elephant population (Sukumar, 1993, 2003); the elephants in this population with a total of >3000 animals adequately satisfies the criterion of long – term survival for this population.

1.3 Elephants in the Garo Hills:

Research on elephants in the Garo Hills has fared slightly better when compared to studies on other groups of fauna. The earliest reliable records for elephant numbers in the entire Garo Hills is 1850 of which 910 were found in the south Garo hills region (State Forest Deptt, 1993). The major elephant areas within the Garo Hills are the districts of South Garo Hills and West Garo Hills. Williams and Johnsingh (1996) conducted dung-encounter surveys to estimate relative abundances of elephants in the four distinct elephant ranges in the Garo hills and one in the adjoining west Khasi hills. The elephant ranges identified were:

(i) West Garo hills elephant range(ii) East Garo hills elephant range(iii) Nokrek NP – Angratolli RF elephant range(iv) South Garo hills elephant range

South Garo Hills elephant range was found to have relatively higher density and more even distribution of elephants than the other areas. The numbers of elephants in the Garo Hills have however been in sharp decline. A 2002 count (State Forest Department, 2002) estimated the number of elephants in the entire Garo Hills to be 1193, a sharp decline from the previous figure of 1460 from a similar census exercise conducted about a decade back in 1993 (Project Elephant, 1993). It was however an increase from the intervening census conducted in 1998 (Marak, 1998) that showed an almost dramatic decline in elephant numbers in the Garo Hills to 878 animals. This figure though may not be entirely true as Marak (2002) attributes such low numbers to the lack of access by census personnel to various areas due to army operations. A recent ‘elephant census’ conducted by the Meghalaya State Forest Department in 2007-2008 covered the entire state and is expected to provide the latest numbers of elephants in the Garo Hills. This information was still being compiled at the time of writing this report and was unavailable for review. However preliminary analysis seems to indicate that there has been no major change in the elephant populations, although dispersion seems to have increased (pers. comm. Gregory Shulai, Conservator, 2008). It is quite obvious that there has been a substantial reduction in the population of wild elephants as figures from further back indicates a much larger population. The first elephant census in 1980 was conducted by the State Forest Department (Das Choudhury, 1981) in the Balpakram NP (then proposed Wildlife Sanctuary) covering an area of 582 sq. km. This area included the present Balpakram NP (~200 sq. km.) and surrounding ‘buffer’ areas. A total of 857 elephants were reported from this area. There is a consistent trend in these census figures which notes that the largest sub-population of elephants within the Garo Hills is in the south Garo Hills, concentrated around the Balpakram NP and the Baghmara RF. Bist (2005) estimates the number of elephants in the Garo Hills Elephant Reserve as approximately 1700. In any case, allowing for a considerable margin of error, elephant numbers in the Garo Hills still appears to be well above 1000 and hence having an excellent chance of long-term survival. However, the decreasing trend needs to be checked immediately as incidences of poaching (Appendix 3) and human-elephant conflict have been steadily rising over the years.

9

An affirmation of conflict between humans and elephants was probably first expressed by Stracey (1967) where he mentions that elephants in the Garo Hills have been an ‘endemic’ problem leading to crop and property depredation and loss of human life. Gogoi (1981) describes elephant depredation in the Garo Hills as ‘serious’ while admitting that the compensation paid for crop damage is not commensurate to the loss. He predicts that levels of conflict will continue to rise, leading to injury and deaths of elephants unless this situation is addressed. Kumar and Rao (1985) make a brief mention of elephants raiding jhum fields for vegetables. Desai and Krishmamurthy (1992) conducted the first study on conflict between humans and elephants in Meghalaya. Williams and Johnsingh (1996) conducted the first comprehensive study on elephants in the Garo Hills which looked at movement routes, conflict and habitat preference in the west and south Garo Hills districts. The study relied on the database of elephant depredation maintained by the State Forest Department and used that information to assess Human Elephant Conflict for the West Garo Hills district. The study also evaluated three major elephant ‘corridors’ and conducted a habitat preference analysis based on dung encounter surveys. The most comprehensive study on Human Elephant Conflict was carried out by Gurung and Lahiri Choudhury (2000, 2001) across the state of Meghalaya. Apart from the detailed analysis of statistics on conflict sourced from State Forest Department sources and their interpretation, the study identified shortening jhum cycles as the single most important factor behind increasing man-elephant conflict. Loss of forest cover, poaching and mining are also seen as serious threats and potentially disastrous for the elephant population. An important observation of this study was highlighting the fact that a very small part of the elephant population of the Garo Hills existed within the protected area network of reserve forests, wildlife sanctuaries and national parks. The majority of the elephants in fact were found to inhabit the community lands which consisted of extensive community forest patches interspersed with agricultural areas and homesteads. These forests needed to be protected and measures for preventing conflict between humans and elephants adopted if long-term conservation of elephants was the objective.

1.4 Samrakshan’s initiative in the South Garo Hills:

Existing literature and previous studies have consistently stressed on the importance of the South Garo Hills region for elephant conservation. State Government Census figures have also shown the number of elephants in this region to be the highest. The Balpakram NP, Baghmara RF, Siju WLS and the adjoining community forests form one of the largest tracts of contiguous forest occupied by elephants and the area is considered as having the best prospect for elephant conservation within the Garo Hills Elephant Reserve. Williams and Johnsingh (1996) had also identified some of the important corridors or movement routes that were crucial to the long-term survival of elephants in the Garo Hills. Among these three corridors, two of them are situated in the South Garo Hills. They are:

1. Siju WLS-Rewak corridor2. Balpakram NP-Baghmara RF corridor

Both these areas fall in the Rongara Block which includes the Balpakram NP, Baghmara RF, Siju WLS and 36 akings. This is an extremely important area for elephants but it was also clear to us that with such a large number of akings (with limited connectivity), it would be necessary to prioritise our conservation efforts to start operations in the most important areas of the landscape. To a great extent, this prioritisation was already available to us from the comprehensive studies of Wiliams and Johnsingh (1996) and Gurung and Choudhury (2000, 2001). These studies suggested that the area lying between the Balpakram NP and the Baghmara RF and Siju WLS were very important for elephant conservation. The initial selection of areas was thus determined and eleven akings were chosen for involving local communities in elephant conservation activities. Incidences of conflict between elephants and humans were also on the rise and most of these incidents were not reported to the concerned government authorities (in this case, the Forest Department) which meant that

10

information collected from government databases on conflict were not really representative of the severity of the conflict. The reasons for increasing conflict were not very difficult to identify. Much of it had already been discussed by previous studies. Increasing populations and decreasing recovery periodsfor jhum fields meant that productivity of crops was decreasing. Simultaneously, newer areas of forests were being slashed and burnt and converted to jhum fields to accommodate the food requirements of additional people. The appearance of orchards in this landscape and haphazard expansion of agriculture meant that elephant habitats were impinged upon. This inevitably led to greater contact between humans and elephants, resulting in increased human-elephant conflict. Shortening jhum cycles, which have already been identified as the single most important factor behind rising levels of human-elephant conflict by Gurung and Lahiri-Choudhury (2000) was definitely a factor that needed long-term solutions involving changes in land-use. However, before a larger discussion on land-use changes could be initiated, it was important to get accurate, first-hand information on elephant presence and conflict from selected portions of the landscape. This information would not only help us identify major areas of conflict within the landscape, it would also provide us a reliable picture of the actual scale of human-elephant conflict. Increased contact between villagers would also provide us insights into associated issues that influenced levels of conflict. Local informants were identified in each of the study akings and trained to collect basic information on human-elephant conflict. This community based participatory wildlife monitoring would be able to provide an excellent alternative to costly and time consuming data collection techniques involving a large number of trained personnel. It would be especially useful to gain a preliminary idea of the scale of human-elephant conflict in various akings. This would also develop closer relations with people affected by conflict and help avert the suspicion and misgivings that an external monitoring agency may provoke. The exercise would also provide us with a pool of highly motivated field workers who are very familiar with the landscape and wild elephants. Their field skills and local knowledge can be subsequently utilised for further field studies on wild elephants.

11

2. Methodology

2.1 Elephant Monitoring

Participatory monitoring of elephant populations was initially started in six select akings and later extended to five more (See Results for details). We collected information on elephant presence in the landscape with the intention of gaining vital knowledge on elephant numbers and ranging that would not only help in land-use planning for HEC mitigation but also evaluate a novel method of involving communities to monitor wildlife in habitats that impose severe logistic and practical difficulties in adopting traditional survey techniques. We modified an existing framework for collecting information on elephants by communities in Africa (Hoare 1999) and translated it into the local Garo language for ease of use by locals.In each of the akings, a reliable local volunteer was identified as the informant for that aking. In some cases, there was more than one informant for a single aking.

The reasons for adopting a community based participatory form of research and not a conventional system of data collection involving visits at regular intervals by field staff to collect information were various. The primary reason was that in the absence of any information on elephant movement in the area on a micro-scale, it was desirable to obtain at least some basic information. Such information would also be best collected or recorded by the very same people who were affected by Human Elephant Conflict. Trained informants in the villages would be able to gather information much more effectively and timely with some basic training. The exercise would also provide a greater ownership and understanding of the research project and help garner community support. This can be extremely crucial in areas of elephant induced conflict where people are generally intolerant of large scale crop raiding or destruction of property. Greater interaction with locals also gives the opportunity to raise associated issues relating to the importance of forests, wildlife and other natural resources in our life and why conservation is important.

Support and cooperation was requested from the headman (Nokma) and villagers were requested to pass on information on elephant presence in their crop fields and areas adjoining habitations and any other area where elephants were sighted. This information consisted of the following parameters:

1. Location or landmark near which elephants were sighted2. Date and approximate time when the animals were sighted3. Did they cause damage to crops, property or life (yes/no)4. Approximate number of elephants (herd/solitary)5. Activity of elephants (conflict/non-conflict)

This information was passed on to the local informant as and when the elephants were sighted. These details were recorded by the informant in Garo in a logbook. Informants were trained to record the information in the logbook in a systematic manner. This information was periodically collected by Samrakshan personnel during their visits to the akings. During such visits, they would also collect locations of the elephant sightings listed in the informants log with the help of a GPS and with the assistance of the informant (Appendix 1)The data on elephant presence was then entered into a computer and the GPS locations mapped on a GIS domain (See Figure 3.1).

12

Data on elephant presence for various akings were collated and analysed to detect patterns of seasonality of elephant visits or changes in group size on a temporal scale. To bring the informants to a common level of understanding and to communicate the findings of the process, quarterly meetings were organised with them and additional raising of awareness levels were done through talks and relevant wildlife films.

2.2 Aking mapping

A major part of the overall elephant monitoring exercise was preparing comprehensive maps of the landscape which included the boundaries of the akings. Since there are no existing maps of akings which could be used, mapping was done manually and then transferred onto a GIS platform. Headmen and village elders in the akings were consulted and knowledgeable individuals who knew the extent of aking boundaries identified. GPS receivers were then used to manually walk and track these boundaries. This was then transferred onto a GIS platform and the data was cleaned. This exercise managed to yield aking boundaries of allthe 36 akings in the landscape (See Figure 1.1).

2.3 Analysis

Basic analysis and graphs were prepared on Microsoft Excel (2002). Statistical analysis was performed on Minitab 14. Locations were recorded with the following GPS receivers –GARMIN eTrex venture, GARMIN GPS 72, GARMIN GPS 12. Maps were prepared with GPS Trackmaker 13, Global Mapper 8.03 and ArcGIS 9.

Figures 1 – 4 (clockwise from top left):1. Informants data recording logbook2. Samrakshan staff collecting data from logbooks to

datasheets3. Visiting conflict spot to verify information4. Recording GPS location of conflict spot

13

3. Results

Information on elephant presence in 11 akings was analysed to answer basic questions on seasonality, locations, timing of visits and the comparative propensity of solitary animals and herds towards HEC. Data was recorded for 11 akings between June 2005 and December 2007. However, only six akings contributed data for this entire period of 31 months. Others were added gradually during the course of the exercise. Table 3.1 shows the data collection time period for all 11 akings.

Serial No. Aking Start of monitoring End of monitoring Total No. of months1 Alokpang June 2005 December 2007 312 Ampangre June 2005 December 2007 313 Balkhal December 2006 December 2007 134 Gongrot June 2005 December 2007 315 Halwa Ambeng February 2007 December 2007 116 Halwa Atong June 2005 December 2007 317 Hansapal December 2006 December 2007 138 Panda June 2005 December 2007 319 Rewak December 2006 December 2007 1310 Rongrengpal June 2005 December 2007 3111 Siju December 2006 December 2007 13

Table 3.1 Period of data collection for elephant monitoring in 11 akings

The choice of the additional 5 akings since the exercise was started in June 2005 was decided based on their locations in the proximity of protected areas such as the Baghmara RF, Balpakram NP and Siju WLS. Existing literature (Williams and Johnsingh, 1996; Gurung and Lahiri Choudhury, 2000), local knowledge and the matrix of different land-use classes between the major forest bodies suggest regular movement of elephants. Most of these akings were also sites of Samrakshan Trust’s community mobilization efforts. Of the akingswhere the monitoring effort was expanded into, Balkhal, Hansapal, Rewak and Siju lie in close proximity of the Balpakram NP and the Siju WLS while Halwa Ambeng lies between the Balpakram NP and the Baghmara RF.

A total of 464 ‘visits’ were recorded from all akings for the period between June 2005 and December 2007 (the total sampling period). Of these 2005 recorded 111 visits, 2006 recorded 152 visits and 2007 had 201 visits. Table 3.2 provides the mean number of visits in the different years. The data indicates an overall decrease in the mean number of visits per year.

Year Total visits Months of data Mean visits per month2005 111 42 2.642006 152 76 2.02007 201 131 1.53

Table 3.2 Total number and mean visits by elephants during study period

3.1 Locations of elephant visits :

GPS locations of elephant visits to all 11 akings across the study period were overlaid on a map showing the study akings as well as adjacent ones. Figure 3.1 shows the map with all elephant visit locations overlaid on the aking boundaries, state highways and the Simsang river. Protected areas (Baghmara RF, Balpakram NP and the Siju WLS) are also depicted. Aggregations of points on the map are areas of repeated visits by elephants across time and

14

may be considered as ‘hotspots’ of elephant activity. Considering the fact that the data originates from sightings and detections of elephants by villagers, it is understandable that it is concentrated around gittims or hamlets.

Fig 3.1 Locations of all elephant visits with the study akings shaded in grey

3.2 Temporal pattern of elephant visits :

Seasonality of elephant visits to areas of human habitation or crop fields is a common observation in virtually all studies on HEC in Asia and Africa. Seasonality is seen as a consequence of various factors, primary among them being the availability of edible crops(Sukumar, 2003). Other reasons for seasonal presence of elephants in areas dominated by humans are the relatively low availability of forage in forests, preference for crops and incursion of habitations into seasonal movement routes used by herds. However, availability of edible crops such as paddy rice and millets has been shown to be a significant enticement for raiding bulls or herds. Patterns of seasonality are also expected to be more marked in areas where seasonal, rain-dependent crops such as paddy rice and jhum rice are grown.

Figure 3.2 depicts the frequency of elephant visits and their relation to the major cropping period in the Garo Hills. The major crops are jhum rice and wet paddy depending on the topography of the area. Vegetables, maize and millets are also grown. Increase in the number of elephant visits are seen during the period of sowing of jhum rice and harvesting of jhum rice, maize and millets. This is consistent with the fact that jhum rice is the predominant crop in many of the study akings. Harvesting period for wet paddy also shows a peak in December, 2005, but is not seen thereafter. This can be attributed to the extremely high number of reports of elephant presence in this period from two akings Alokpang (7 visits in December) and Ampangre (5 visits in December). The total number of visits from all six akings during this month is 19.

¹It should be mentioned that Balkhal aking exists on both sides of the Simsang river, but the area considered here is only of the sidelying to the east of the river and falling within the study area.

15

February – December 2007 is the only period when information is available from all 11 akings. In this period, there are two distinct peaks indicating an increase in the number of elephant visits during the harvesting and sowing of jhum rice. Thus, it appears that seasonality of elephant presence due to crops is primarily influenced by jhum rice, maize, millets and vegetables. Other factors such as the ripening of fruits like jackfruits in orchards during this period could also influence the presence of elephants at this time.

Fig 3.2 Frequency of all elephant visits across 31 months with sowing and harvesting period of available crops

3.3 Elephant presence in different akings :

The 11 akings constituting the study area show differing levels of elephant activity. This may be explained to some extent by a combination of factors peculiar to the particular area. The akings have an average area of 6.6 sq.km., ranging in size from 11.5 (Hansapal) to 1.48 sq. km. (Balkhal)¹. Figure 3.3 compares the frequency of elephant visits to different akings. The figure demonstrates that some akingshave considerably higher frequency of elephant visits than others.

Fig 3.3 Comparative frequency of all elephant visits to study akings

Panda (21%), Siju (12%) and Halwa Ambeng (14.4%) appear to be the three Akings most visited by elephants. Panda and Halwa Ambeng both lie in close proximity of the Baghmara RF. Panda shares a significant part of its boundaries with the Reserve Forest. Siju aking shares boundaries with the Siju WLS,

Frequency of visits during study period

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Jun

05

Jul 0

5

Aug

05

Sep

05

Oct

05

Nov

05

Dec

05

Jan

06

Feb

06

Mar

06

Apr

06

May

06

Jun

06

Jul 0

6

Aug

06

Sep

06

Oct

06

Nov

06

Dec

06

Jan

07

Feb

07

Mar

07

Apr

07

May

07

Jun

07

Jul 0

7

Aug

07

Sep

07

Oct

07

Nov

07

Dec

07

Harvesting of jhum rice, maize and millets

Harvesting of wet paddy

Sowing and initial period of jhum rice, maize and millets

Frequency of visits (2005-07)

0.0864

0.0496

0.0344

0.0977

0.1444

0.0608

0.0704

0.0802

0.2081

0.0496

0.1183

Alokpang

Ampangre

Balkhal

Gongrot

Hlw a Ambeng

Hlw a Atong

Rongrengpal

Hangsapal

Panda

Rew ak

Siju

¹Some reasons for this decrease are thought to be the expansion of orchards, building of a new road that blocks theirmovement path and the bamboo flowering in other adjacent areas which have attracted the attention of the elephant herdtowards that area. However, the final word on this can come only after detailed information on movement. Latestinformation suggests that visits are resuming again in 2008.

16

Balpakram NP and the Simsang river. Araiteka gittim of Siju aking is also in very close proximity with the Siju-Rewak RF elephant crossing area (connecting the movement of elephants from the Balpakram NP towards Rewak RF), designated as an elephant corridor by some authors (Williams and Johnsingh, 1996; Tiwari et. al., 2005). Variation in the visits by elephants to different akings may be a consequence of various factors such as seasonal movement patterns, forage availability, incursion of agricultural fields and orchards into their traditional routes; variations on the scale of akings may not be explained without anunderstanding of their movement and usage of different land-use classes. Figure 3.6contains all elephant visit locations overlaid on a classified imagery of the landscape. Some of the major aggregations of elephant presence can be seen to be at the edges of large forest areas and habitation as seen in Panda (to the east of the Baghmara RF) and Siju(adjacent to the Siju WLS). Unfortunately, there are no comparative studies in this area with which elephant visit frequencies at this scale could be compared. Gurung and Lahiri Choudhury (2000) states that 4.11% of villages in South Garo Hills district are raided daily for Food crops and Cash crops each for the period of 1997-98.Figure 3.4 Frequency of elephant visits to different akingsin each year

Figure 3.4 provides a comparison of the frequency of elephant visits in each aking across the time period of the study. As mentioned in Table 3.1, only six akings have information on elephant visits for the entire study period. Ampangre and Rongrengpal akings show a sharp decline in the number of elephant visits from 2005 to 2007. Rongrengpal especially, had the highest frequency of visits in 2005 (0.34) which declined to a negligible 0.008 in 2007. This sudden decline is not easily explainable and may be understood better only after a thorough mapping of elephant routes and an understanding of elephant movement patterns in the area¹. Alternatively, the intense activity of 2005 could be an aberration restricted only to that year.

The only two akings which have shown a significant increase in the frequency of elephant visits have been Panda and Siju. Rewak and Hansapal have also shown an increase but the numbers of visits are still too low to be a cause for concern to people. Panda is located at the international boundary with Bangladesh and also shares a large portion of its boundary with the Baghmara RF. One particular hamlet in the southern part of this aking appears to fall within the path of elephant herds that move between Bangladesh and India. This movement route has been identified by previous authors (Choudhury, 2007) and has been substantiated by the BSF (Company Commander Panda BOP, pers. comm.) who are involved in regular patrolling and monitoring of the international border. Frequency of elephant visits to Alokpang has been high and has remained similar to 2005, although there was some reduction in 2006. Gongrot too, has shown a minor decrease in 2007 after an increase in 2006. These minor fluctuations could however be due to seasonal movement patterns or aggregations of family units.

Comparative frequency of visits (2005 - 2007)

0.252

0.135

0.000

0.135

0.000

0.099

0.000

0.036

0.000

0.342

0.000

0.143

0.098

0.007

0.169

0.000

0.124

0.028

0.163

0.007

0.247

0.014

0.254

0.008

0.027

0.076

0.122

0.030

0.065

0.255

0.046

0.008

0.110

Alokpang

Ampangre

Balkhal

Gongrot

H Ambeng

H Atong

Hangsapal

Panda

Rew ak

Rongrengpal

Siju

2007

2006

2005

17

3.4 Elephants and conflict :

Conflict between humans and elephants are found to exist in differing degrees in almost all areas of overlapping presence. This was witnessed within our study area too. We were interested to know if the frequency of elephant visits to different akings translated to a similar degree of conflict related incidents in these areas. Information collected by informants in the akings was able to classify most of the elephant visits into conflict/non-conflict visits. A visit was classified as a ‘conflict incident’ if it involved crop raiding, damage to orchards or damage to other property. ‘Non-conflict incidents’ were occasions when elephants were found to be moving without causing any damage. Some incidents could not be classified into either category because of the lack of visibility. These were not considered for this particular analysis.

Figure 3.5 Frequency of incidents of elephant visits that were cause of Human Elephant Conflict across the study period

Figure 3.5 compares the level of conflict in different akings. Panda, Rongrengpal, Halwa Ambeng and Alokpang appear to be the places with high degree of Human Elephant Conflict. Panda is also the aking with maximum elephant visits as seen in Figure 3.3 and is clearly a priority area for HEC mitigation. Rongrengpal, can be seen to have had a sharp decline in the number of elephant visits from 2005 to 2007 as shown in Figure 3.4. Thus the severity of conflict is mostly from incidents that have happened in the past. Currently, the number of elephant visits as well as level of HEC in Rongrengpal is negligible. For Halwa Ambeng, information is available only for one year, making it difficult to comment on how it compares with previous years. However, its location in close

proximity of the Baghmara RF and the Simsang river would suggest frequent use of its lands by elephants. An interesting result is the extremely low frequency of HEC in Hansapal akingalthough it is visited frequently by elephants. Elephant visits in this aking are primarily for movement. Similarly, Siju aking has a high frequency of elephant visits; but the number of HEC related incidents is comparatively few. This could be attributed to the movement of elephants across the Simsang to the Rewak RF through the Siju-Rewak movement area. If we compare HEC and non-HEC related activities across the study period (Fig 3.7), they indicate a gradual decrease in HEC related activity (‘damage’ and ‘raiding’) although it is still more common than non-HEC related activity such as ‘movement’ which implies the passing

Frequency of HEC related visits in different akings

0.11

0.05

0.02

0.09

0.12

0.09

0.14

0.01

0.25

0.05

0.07

AKP

AMP

BKL

GRT

HAM

HAT

RPL

HPL

PND

RWK

SIJ

18

of

Fig

ure

3.6

Un

sup

ervi

sed

cla

ssif

icat

ion

of

Lan

dsa

t im

ager

y ov

erla

id w

ith

ele

ph

ant

visi

t lo

cati

ons

and

aki

ng

bou

nd

arie

s

19

elephants close to areas of human habitation without causing any damage to crops or property. In 2005 79.2% of the visits were HEC related. In 2006 this decreased to 63% and in 2007 it was 54.2%. This indicates that not only have the mean number of visits comes down from 2005, but conflict related incidents have also decreased. Comparison of HEC activities (feeding and damage) and non-HEC activities by elephants for all three years with the Wilcoxons 2 sample signed-rank test shows the following results:2005 – Visits by elephants for HEC were greater than visits for non HEC (mean ± standard deviation [11.57 ± 6.88 > 4.29 ± 2.81] p = 0.035)2006 – Visits for HEC > non-HEC (7.25 ± 6.88 > 4.25 ± 3.388 [p = 0.255])2007 – Visits for HEC > non-HEC (9.00 ± 6.94 > 7.58 ± 6.50 [p = 0.45])Although there is still a significant difference in the HEC and non-HEC related activities of elephants in the akings, the probability (p) for such an occurrence has been decreasing. However, the problem of decreased detection probability of solitary animals at night is a major factor and may significantly bias the non-HEC related activity dataset of solitary animals.

Figure 3.7 Activity of elephants in different years. ‘Damage’ and ‘Feeding’ are activities that lead to HEC. ‘Movement’ is a non-HEC activity

3.5 Solitary animals or herds? :

Studies on elephants and crop raiding have frequently led to comparisons between solitary males and female dominated herds and their comparative tendency for causing HEC. A large number of these studies have concluded that solitary males or bachelor herds are more likely to raid crops and cause damage than female herds. Figure 3.8 displays the total number of visits by solitary animals as well as herds across the entire study period. Clearly, the number of visits by herds is more than the number of visits by solitary animals. Two seasonal peaks, indicating an increase in the number of visits during that period is observed to be consistent for both solitary animals and herds. The intensity of the second peak in Sep-Oct is weaker in case of solitary animals. The first peak observed in June, coincides with the sowing and initial period of jhum rice, maize and millets. This is also the start of the monsoon when large congregations are seen in elephants.

2006 Activity (N = 153)

87

51

15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Feeding Movement No response

Activity 2007 (N=201)

17

92 92

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Damage Feeding Movement

2005 Activity (N = 101)

80

31

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Feeding Movement

No

. o

f v

isit

s

20

Solitary vs Herd total

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

No

. o

f v

isit

sSolitary

Herd

Figure 3.8 Total visits by solitary animals and herds

However, differences between solitary animals and herds with regard to HEC cannot be concluded from the above graph. Figure 3.9 compares the instances of HEC and non-HEC related activities in which solitary animals and herds were involved.

Figure 3.9 Comparative frequencies of HEC and non HEC related activity among solitary animals and herds from 2005 - 2007

Solitary animals and herds were found to differ significantly in HEC related activities (chi square test p<0.001, chi-square value = 32.75, df = 2). This appears to validate the idea that solitary animals are more often involved in crop raiding. However, solitary animals are also more difficult to detect than herds if they are silently moving and not indulging in HEC related activity. This would presumably bias the number of observations recorded for their non-HEC activities. In terms of actual damage caused, the number of visits for HEC related activity by herds (181)is much higher than solitaries (95) and thus would be a bigger concern to the villagers. This

2005 2006 2007

Herd non HEC

Herd HEC

Solitary non HEC

Solitary HEC

21

is not entirely undesirable as herds are more easily scared away by conventional mitigation methods as seen in other studies (Hoare, 1999). Studies in other HEC locations have also shown that solitary animals are behaviourally inclined to raid crops more frequently than herds. This is a natural trend triggered by their ‘risk-taking’ nature (Sukumar and Gadgil, 1988), a trend that is observed within our study area too.

3.6 Group Sizes :

Information on group sizes was usually in the form of distinguishing between herds or solitary animals. Wherever possible, informants recorded the size of the groups that were sighted. Detailed compositional information on all visits by herds was unavailable, but existing data was analysed for finding group sizes. Overall, there were 135 visits by solitary animals and 330 visits by herds of differing sizes. The details of different years are presented in Figure 3.10, which shows a decrease in the number of visits by solitary animals simultaneously accompanied by an increase in the number of visits by herds. Details of group sizes for the study period are presented in Figure 3.11. Herd sizes ranged from 2 to 25. This may not be indicative of the actual herd size and may simply be an indicator of the number of animals in the herd that were sighted at any point of time. When

Figure 3.10. Numbers of visits by solitary animals and herds during the study period

elephant group data was distributed in different size groups, small/medium group size appeared to be the most prevalent (Figure 3.11). Large herds of 15 individuals or more were the least common. The largest group size was 25 and herds of 20 animals were seen on 5 occasions. Solitary animal visits were more than any other group size category. The mean group size was found to be 6.71 (range 2 – 25). However if solitary animals are also considered, the group size is 4.13(range 1 – 25).

37

29

11

32

16

23

13

3

17

2

14

1 1

63 2

0 15

0 0 0 0 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Group Size

Figure 3.11. Group size composition of herds from June 2005 to December 2007. N = 217 out of total herd detections of 330.

59 54

22

52

99

179

2005 2006 2007

Solitary

Herd

22

3.7 Time of visits:Figure 3.12 Frequency of elephant visits during day or night during study period

The exact time of the day when the elephants visited was recorded in some cases, but overall it was not available for all the data points. The minimum information available was if the visit had taken place in the daylight hours or at night. Elephants typically wait until cover of dark to venture near human habitation, and this trend was consistent for most of the study period. In 2005, 53% of visits were during the night. 2006 (82%) and 2007 (88%) witnessed a more marked preference in theelephants for night. The discrepancy for 2005 can be attributed to the high number of day time visits in Rongrengpal aking,

most of which are in an open area and hence easily visible. In subsequent years, the frequency of elephant visits to this aking dropped sharply. This also underscores the fact that most of the information available for elephant visits was collected by people during conditions of darkness. This would greatly reduce their ability to sight solitary animals that are only involved in non-conflict activities such as movement. Sightings and detections of herds are more likely because of the greater numbers of individuals. Most of the villages in the study area have not yet been electrified, making sightings at night even more difficult.

3.8 Movement of elephants across the Simsang River:

The Simsang or the Someshwari river is the only major river in the study area. It is the largest river in the Garo Hills, flowing towards the west from the Nokrek mountain range and forms the western boundary of the Baghmara Balpakram Landscape. The upper part of this river is not navigable due to a large number of waterfalls and huge stones (Meghalaya District Gazetteer, 1996). The lower portion of the river however, has many deep pools and can also be traversed on boats. A regular boat service runs between Baghmara and Balkhal, during that part of the year when the water level is high enough.Elephant movement across the river is crucial to understanding their movement patterns. In this regard, a great deal of attention has been focused on the ‘Siju-Rewak elephant corridor’across the river Simsang connecting the Siju WLS with the Rewak RF. This is believed to be a connecting link for the movement of elephant populations between Balpakram NP and Nokrek (Williams and Johnsingh, 1996; Tiwari et. al., 2005).Existing information appeared to indicate that movement of elephants across the Simsang was only through a narrow ‘corridor’ connecting the Siju WLS and Rewak RF on opposite sides of the river. This however, did not agree with our observations and discussions with the dwellers of the akings located beside the river. We conducted a short study to ascertain the location of regular crossing points of elephants across the Simsang between Siju in the north to Baghmara in the south. The study was done in 2005 with the assistance of a boatman who had plied passenger boats on this route for several years and consequently had the best knowledge of elephant crossing points and elephant paths that terminated at the river. The survey was able to identify many crossing points on this stretch of the Simsang river which are used frequently by elephants across all seasons. These routes were later checked by the field team to confirm the usage by elephants.

0.47

0.18

0.12

0.53

0.82

0.88

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

2005 2006 2007

Day

Night

23

Figure 3.13 shows that the majority of the movement routes are located towards the southern part of the river where it is shallower. The northern part of the Baghmara RF sees regular movement of elephants across the river at five locations. These are illustrated in Figure 3.13 with arrows. These points and the associated elephant trails were investigated and the following information collected:

1. This point has been known to be used in the rainy season. Observers noted that elephants crossed over to a large patch of bamboo forest across the Simsang from the Baghmara RF and fed extensively on bamboo shoots (Melocanna bambusoidesand Bambusa tulda).

2. This particular path leads from the Baghmara RF to Gokha aking situated on the other side of the Simsang. It is a large and well worn elephant trail that is used frequently. It is also the largest major elephant trail in Gokha aking.

3. This is one of the largest and oldest crossing points through which there is regular movement of elephants from the Baghmara RF to Gokha aking on the other side. It is used throughout the year and elephants are known to cross over even in the wet season.

4. This path along with the routes 5 and 6 are used frequently to cross over to Bulawe gittim. There is a lot of back and forth movement and the area was found to have many elephant signs.

5. See 4.

6. This is one of the two crossing points in Alokpang aking. There is frequent movement between Baghmara RF, Bulawe on the other side of the river and this point. The crossing point on the Alokpang side is an areca orchard.

7. There are two crossing points located close to each other at this point which allow elephant’s easy access to the Dawakol gittim which they visit for crop raiding. They are known to usually use this path at night.

8. This is the Siju - Rewak crossing point. Elephants cross over from the Siju Araiteka gittim to the Rewak RF across the Simsang. Although this has been shown as one crossing point in the map, there are various routes within 250-300m along the river which show regular use by elephants. Incidentally, the Rewak RF was apparently cultivated in the past and was converted into a RF only by 1900. The movement on this route is seasonal in nature.

24

Fig

ure

3.1

3 P

oin

ts o

f cr

ossi

ng

by e

lep

han

ts a

cros

s th

e S

imsa

ng

rive

r. D

etai

ls in

tex

t b

elow

25

Figure 3.14 i – iv(clockwise from top left):

i. Elephantfootmarks near Bulawe crossing point.ii. Elephant trail ending at the Simsang riveriii. Dung piles near Siju-Rewak crossingiv. Siju – Rewak crossing with the Rewak RF in the background

26

4. Discussion

The Garo hills have seen various studies on elephants, many of them (Gurung and Lahiri Choudhury, 2000, 2001; Desai and Krishnamurthy, 1992; Williams and Johnsingh, 1996, 2004)) focusing specifically on the problem of human elephant conflict. These studies have however focused on very large areas, grouping different districts together and using information on conflict available with state government agencies. This approach has resulted in a generalised view of the landscape that has not been able to capture the high degree of heterogeneity within. Conflict information sourced from government agencies such as compensation records are also unable to provide a true picture of the magnitude of the conflict due to its incomplete nature. Compensation claims filed by villagers, are a minimal part of the overall number of conflict incidents as most villagers decide to stop applying for compensation altogether, given the minimal returns and massive delays. The current study attempts to address the issue at the scale of akings and gittims and to look at possible changes in land-use planning as the primary method to address HEC. To address the issue at a smaller scale, i.e. at the scale of gittims (hamlets), it was essential to have an independent source of information, which would be able to provide more detailed and accurate information than the government compensation claims. Participatory elephant monitoring was the natural solution, as it not only provided accurate information from the very people who were affected by it, it also formed an important bridge for improving relations with people affected by HEC. This was important as winning the support and trust of people affected by HEC has been a significant hurdle in most parts of the world where wild elephants stay in close proximity with people (Thouless, 1994; Lahm, 1996; Williams et. al., 2001; Zhang and Wang, 2003) . An important result from this exercise of looking at individual akings is the information on the comparative levels of conflict within this area. Our results show that there is a great deal of variability in the levels of elephant presence and conflict even among the 11 akings that were covered in this study. Akings like Panda, Gongrot and Alokpang account for a muchhigher number of elephant visits than the other akings. This proves the effectiveness and value of detailed information on a micro scale in a landscape that is a matrix of forests, orchards, agricultural land and jhum fallows. It also dispels the notion of uniformity within such an area and helps us prioritise future conservation interventions based on the level of severity of conflict. When this study was carried out, there was little understanding of the complexity of HECwithin the small area of choice. This area has been identified by previous authors as containing two major ‘elephant corridors’ (Williams and Johnsingh, 1996; Gurung and Lahiri Choudhury, 2000; Tiwari et. al. 2005). The maintenance of these corridors has been linked to the continued survival of the substantial population of elephants in the south Garo Hills. The authors (Williams and Johnsingh, 1996; Tiwari et. al. 2005) have also observed that much of the area forming these corridors is community owned land. This community owned land falls within different akings, each of which have their independent land-use plans decided primarily under the leadership of the aking nokma (headman). Thus, the absence of uniformity in the land-use of such a crucial part of elephant habitat leaves it open to the threat of unplanned land-use changes. Larger threats such as mining and large scale conversion to orchards (Williams and Johnsingh, 1996; Gurung and Lahiri Choudhury, 2000)are beginning to manifest themselves in a much more prominent way today. It is thus essential to win community support for the conservation of elephants in this crucial part of the elephant habitat within the Garo Hills.

An important objective of the study was to detect seasonality patterns of elephant visits if they existed. Such seasonality was found to exist and coincided primarily with the period of sowing and harvesting of jhum rice, maize, millets and vegetables. However, not all peaks in seasonality of elephant presence could be explained by cropping periods. A large proportion

27

of elephant visits were non-conflict in nature and involved ‘movement’. This seems to indicate that such seasonal patterns could also be a result of the availability of wild forage in certain areas of the landscape. Anecdotal information also seems to suggest that elephant presence increases with the ripening of jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus), a food of choice for them. Elephant movement and ranging may also be influenced by their visits across the border to the plains of Bangladesh which have extensive paddy cultivation. This could also be the period when large herds of 20 or more were seen, unlike the small to medium sized herds sighted throughout the year. Choudhury (2007) has highlighted the fact that movement by elephants from the region between Baghmara and Maheshkhola to Bangladesh takes place every year coinciding with the period before the harvesting of paddy in adjoining Mymensingh area of Bangladesh (advent of winter). This could also explain the significantly higher number of elephant visits in Panda aking which lies on the Bangladesh border and also shares a large boundary with the Baghmara RF. Thus, elephant movement patterns are probably the result of various factors and needs a thorough investigation across the aking which is not restricted only to areas of human presence as is the case with this study. Overall, there also appeared to be greater number of visits by herds when compared to solitary animals. However, detection of solitary animals at night (the preferred period for elephant visits) is more difficult from herds and thus we can expect to have missed detection of some solitary animals.When we compared activity patterns of the elephants in the different years depending on whether they were ‘conflict’ or ‘non-conflict’, there was a gradual decline in frequencies of conflict related activities from 2005 to 2007. However, when HEC activities of herds and solitary animals were compared across the years, there was significant decrease in HEC related activities by solitary animals and a consequent increase in similar activity by herds. Thus, although there are significant differences in HEC related activity of herds and solitaries, the high degree of heterogeneity in the landscape may mean that some akings may be more susceptible to raiding by solitaries and some by herds. Elephant human interactions are primarily spatial and in such cases of heterogeneity may be poorly described through numeric means (Hoare and du Toit, 1999). An increase in the number of HEC related activities by herds as is shown by the data may indicate that the risks are very low for herds, allowing them to consistently engage in such ‘risk-taking’ activity such as crop-raiding. This is supported by anecdotal information from the akings which indicates that there is minimal guarding of crops in active or passive forms.Overall visits also reduced in most of the akings. The high degree of human influenced changes leading to very high levels of habitat heterogeneity in this landscape thus appears to influence elephant presence significantly over time. This manifests itself through situations where conflict situations are almost being completely reversed within a matter of one or two years. The increasing levels of elephant presence and conflict in Panda aking and drastic decrease in Rongrengpal aking are examples of such situations.

A comprehensive study of the movement patterns of elephant herds is essential across the aking lands if land-use planning is to be used as a tool for alleviating conflict and safeguarding elephant habitat. A detailed investigation of the spatial nature will be the next stage of the current project, involving tracking of elephants through direct and indirect signs. The planned activities are described briefly in the next section. Monitoring the crossing pointsof elephants across the Simsang river is an important part of this overall work on movement patterns.

28

5. Future initiatives

The results of the current study indicate that there remains a considerable gap in our understanding of elephant movement across aking lands. The information collected to date provides a reasonably comprehensive idea of the use of human-dominated parts of the landscape by elephants such as orchards, jhum fields, paddy fields, habitations etc. within our study akings. However, in actual terms of landscape coverage and for planning land-use it is grossly inadequate. Information on human-elephant conflict of the nature that has been collected till now needs to be available from more akings in the landscape to supplement the existing information. Similarly, information on elephant presence in forested areas and other areas without human presence is essential to provide a complete picture of the spatial and temporal usage of aking lands by elephants. Towards this goal, the following initiatives are planned:

1. Expansion of HEC monitoring to other akingsWe hope to expand our monitoring of human-elephant conflict through aking level informants to 6 new akings, bringing the total number of akings to 17 and covering practically the entire stretch from Siju in the north to Panda in the south. This monitoring will also have informants actively visiting gittims assigned to them at fortnightly intervals and recording information on elephant presence in that period. It is planned to start this from the month of August, 2008.

2. Monitoring of major roads, rivers and streams for presence of elephant crossing Roads, streams and rivers are spread out through the landscape and afford good coverage to check for elephant movement through direct or indirect evidence. Often crossing points exist along these and are regularly used by elephants. Regular monitoring of these can provide continuous information on relative usage of these crossing points and be a valuable tool to understand ranging patterns.

3. Survey of forested areas (within the akings) in a major part of the landscape to collect information on elephant ranging, group structure and habitat use

Pre-decided fixed length trails (based on maximum coverage of available habitats, topographical features and areas of known elephant usage) will be walked by the team once in 15 days and all evidence related to elephant presence recorded. This will include direct sightings as well as indirect evidence such as tracks, dung piles, feeding signs. Locations of elephant presence will be recorded with a GPS or its relative position on the trail. In case of direct sightings, numbers, age-sex structure and unique identification features will be noted. Data from signs will provide information on movement routes and group structure.

4. Mitigation help to select akingsAnecdotal information that most crop-fields have no passive or active guarding needs to be verified. A short survey to understand the levels of protection given to crops across the landscape is planned. Existing information from 11 akings have already identified thoseakings with the highest levels of HEC. Such areas will be helped with mitigation methods to reduce the level of conflict.

29

6. References

1. Anonymous. 1993. Project Elephant (Gajatme). Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India. 46 pp

2. Awasthi, A. 1999. Plant diversity of Meghalaya and some issues for concern. Indian Journal of Forestry. 22(1). 14-21

3. Bist, S.S. 2005. Elephant conservation in India – an overview. Gajah 25(3): 27-35.

4. Choudhury, A.U. 1999. Status and conservation of the Asian Elephant Elephasmaximus in north-eastern India. Mammal Rev. Volume 29, No. 3, 141–173.

5. Choudhury, A.U. 2007. Impact of border fence along India-Bangladesh border on elephant movement. Gajah 26 (2007) 27-30

6. Conservation International. 2007. Biodiversity Hotspots – Indo Burma (http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/hotspots/indo_burma/Pages/default.aspx (accessed on 12/07/08)

7. Daniel, J.C. 1998. The Asian Elephant: A Natural History. Natraj Publishers, Dehradun.

8. Das P.K., R.K. Ghose, T.K. Chakraborty, T.P.Bhattacharyya M.K. Ghosh. 1995. FAUNA OFMEGHALAYA: PART1 (VERTEBRATES) State Fauna Series, 4. Zoological Survey of India.Calcutta 700 053, India Pgs: 23-128

9. Das Choudhury, G. 1981. Elephant status survey and census in Meghalaya. Pp. 23-27. In: Proceedings of the first meeting of the northeast India task force, Asian Elephant Specialist Group. IUCN/SSC. Shillong.

10. Desai, A.A and V. Krishnamurthy. 1992. Elephants in Meghalaya state, India: status, conservation and conflict with agriculture. pp 9-13. In: The Asian elephant (eds: Silas, Krishnan and Nirmalan) Kerala Agricultural University, Trichur, India.

11. Forest Survey of India (2001). State of Forest Report, Forest Survey of India,Dehradun.

12. Gogoi, P.C. 1981. Action plan for census of elephant and its management in Meghalaya. Pp. 28-31. In: Proceedings of the first meeting of the northeast India task force, Asian Elephant Specialist Group. IUCN/SSC. Shillong.

13. Gurung, S and D.K. Lahiri-Choudhury. 2000. Project: Elephant – Human Conflict in Asia, State Report on Meghalaya – India (Pt. I), (1992 – 1999). Asian Elephant Research and Conservation Centre, Bangalore.

14. Gurung, S and D.K. Lahiri-Choudhury. 2001. Project: Elephant – Human Conflict in Asia, State Report on Meghalaya – India (Pt. II), Community Development – Block Reports (1992 – 1999). Asian Elephant Research and Conservation Centre, Bangalore.

15. Haridasan K and RR Rao. 1985. The Flora of Meghalaya. Volumes I and II. Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehradun. Pp 937.

30

16. Hoare, R. 1999. Determinants of human-elephant conflict in a land-use mosaic. Journal of Applied Ecology. 36:689-700.

17. Hoare, R.E. & du Toit, J.T. 1999. Coexistence between people and elephants in African savannas. Conservation Biology, 13, 633-639.

18. IUCN. 2007. IUCN Redlist of threatened species www.iucnredlist.org (accessed on05/06/2008)

19. Kumar, Y and R.R. Rao. 1985. Studies on Balpakram Wildlife Sanctuary in Meghalaya – 3: General account, forest types and fauna. Indian Journal of Forestry. 8 (4): 300-309

20. Lahm, S.A. 1996. A nationwide status survey of crop raiding by elephants and other species in Gabon. Pachyderm. 21:69-77.

21. Marak, T.T.C. 1998. The Elephant Census Report for Meghalaya. Wildlife Wing, Forest and Environment Department, Meghalaya, Shillong.

22. Marak, T.T.C. 2002. Status, distribution and conservation of the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) in Meghalaya. Indian Forester. 128(2): 207-216

23. Meghalaya District Gazetteer series.1996. Garo Hills Districts. Directorate of Arts and Culture, District Gazetteers Brook Site Complex, Meghalaya, Shillong.

24. Myers, N., R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, G. A. B. da Fonseca, and J. Kent. 2000.Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853-858

25. Pawar, S. and Birand, A. 2001. A survey of amphibians, reptiles, and birds in Northeast India. CERC Technical Report #6, Centre for Ecological Research and Conservation, Mysore.

26. State Forest Department. 2002. Elephant census in Meghalaya 2002. Meghalaya State Forest Department. Shillong.

27. State Forest Department.1993. Report of elephant census of Balpakram. State Forest Department. Government of Meghalaya, Shillong.

28. Stracey, P.D. 1967. Reade Elephant Hunter. London; Robert Hale.

29. Sukumar, R. and M. Gadgil. 1988. Male-female differences in foraging on crops by Asian elephants. Animal Behaviour. 36:1233-1235.

30. Sukumar, R and Santiapillai, C. 1996. Elephas maximus: Status and distribution. In Shoshani and Tassy (eds) The Proboscidea: Evolution and palaeoecology of elephants and their relatives.

31. Sukumar, R. 2003. The Living Elephants: Evolutionary Ecology, Behavior and Conservation, Oxford University Press, New York.

31

32. Sukumar, R. 1993. Minimum viable populations for Asian elephant conservation in A Week With Elephants (eds) JC Daniel, Hemant S Datye. BNHS. Oxford University Press, Bombay. Pp: 279-288

33. Thouless, C.R. 1994. Conflict between humans and elephants on private lands in Northern Kenya. Oryx. 28 (2):119-1127.

34. Tiwari, S.K., Karyong, S.S., Sarkar, P., Choudhury, A. and A.C. Williams. 2005. Elephant corridors of north-eastern India. In. Right of passage: elephant corridors of India. Menon, V., Tiwari, S.K., Easa, P.S. and Sukumar, R. (Eds.). Conservation Reference Series 3. Wildlife Trust of India, New Delhi. Pp 154-158

35. Williams, A.C. and A.J.T. Johnsingh. 1996. A status survey of elephants (Elephas maximus), their habitats and an assessment of the elephant-human conflict in Garo Hills, Meghalaya. Wildlife Institute of India. Dehra Dun, India. Pp. 32

36. Williams, A.C. and A.J.T. Johnsingh. 2004. Elephant – human conflict on community lands in Garo Hills, northeast India. Journal of the Bombay natural History Society 101(2): 227-234

37. Williams, A.C., A.J.T. Johnsingh and P. Krausman. 2001. Elephant-human conflicts in Rajaji National Park, northwestern India. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 29(4):1097-1104.

38. Zhang, L. and N. Wang. 2003. An initial study on habitat conservation of Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), with a focus on human elephant conflict in Simao, China. Biological Conservation 112 (2003) 453–459.

32

7. Acknowledgements

Many people have contributed to this project in various forms. Our primary source of funds for this project was the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. This was later supplemented by small grants from WWF International and the Sir Peter Scott Fund from IUCN. The idea and the initial design of the study came from Dr. A Christy Williams who has remained intimately involved with it and contributed in so many different ways that it is difficult to list them all. Dr. M D Madhusudhan helped with framing the initial data collection schedules, while Dr. Sukumar, Surendra Varma and colleagues at AERCC, Bangalore provided initialtraining to our team. Mr. Ajay Desai, co-chair of the Asian Elephant Species Specialist Group clarified our ideas further on moving the project ahead and gave us access to his incomparable knowledge of the natural history of Asian elephants. The officials of the Meghalaya State Forest Department especially the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Mr. Nautiyal was especially supportive of our efforts and showed great faith and encouragement in us. Conservator of Forests Mr. Gregory Shullai and Divisional Forest Officer Mr. RhomingThiek have also been extremely kind and cooperative. Divisional Forest Officer Mr. P.R.Marak, though based in Tura, has been a constant source of encouragement, guidance and tea(!)during numerous visits to his office in transit from Baghmara. Arun Venkataraman, formerly with CITES MIKE, too has been encouraging and gave us access to numerous research studies. We are also thankful to Dr. G. Areendran and his team at WWF India for the satellite imagery classification. Pankaj Sekhsaria is acknowledged for sharing his photographs with us, some of which are used in this report. But the biggest contributions have obviously come from the field team comprising of the Samrakshan field staff and the informants in the akings. They are:Field staff – Bappi Marak, Bensen Sangma, John Fernando Shira, Susanto Sangma with contributions from Ms.Idalisha P. Marak. Ms. Nova M. Sangma helped with the tedious job of data entry, while Orak R Marak undertook the initial mapping of Aking boundaries.Aking informants – Jhulum Marak, Kredding Marak, Willibersh Sangma, Kadith Sangma, Jhon Marak, Rakson Sangma, Chenang Momin, Adal Sangma, Gostin Sangma, Winnarson Marak, Kendesh Shira, Bandi Marak, George Kingston Marak, Jahanal Marak, Balment Momin, Chaban Marak and Rollingson Marak. Finally, various people from the akings have contributed information on elephants and have provided encouragement and criticisms at various times, both of which have helped us fine tune our work. They have also been gracious hosts when we have needed to stay in their houses during the course of this exercise.

33

APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Datasheet format of information collected through participatory monitoring of elephants. (Table contains sample data)

Sr. Aking / Date Location Group Time Activity

Feeding (F) /

Movement (M) Notes

No. Gittim (exact) Size(movement /

feeding ) M / F (if any) Lat Lon AltST

notes

1 Alokpang 8/9/2005Alokpang

Reserve Forest 5 Day Movement M1 baby, 4

adults 25.13809 90.4108 144M

Number of dung

piles found in

the reserve

2 Bulawe 8/9/2005

Paddy field of Projit, Lemina,

Wiwi 1

Whole Day & Night

Feeding tapioca,yam,sorrel

(Jhum) F

Right front limb is

smaller than other limbs,

short tail,without

tusk. 25.15496 90.40757 6M

3 Bulawe 10/9/2005Paddy field of Johar, Harol 1

Whole Day & Night

Feeding tapioca,yam,sorrel

(Jhum) F

Right front limb is

smaller than other limbs,

short tail,without

tusk. 25.1558 90.40785 17M

4 Bulawe 12/9/2005

Paddy field of Tetchi, Joykin,

Ebet 1

Whole Day & Night

Feeding tapioca,yam,sorrel

(Jhum) F

Right front limb is

smaller than other limbs,

short tail,without

tusk. 25.15466 90.40723 17M

34

Appendix 2. List of elephant individuals or herds with distinctive physical characteristics identified by informants. Re-visits of such individuals or herds were recorded by recognising them from their physical characteristics. This initial database can be further updated through regular data and movement of such animals can be tracked over time across akings through repeat sightings or visual ‘capture – recapture’.

SL NO AKING/GITTIM INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTIC DATE

NO OF RE-VISITS

GROUP SIZE REMARKS

1 GONGROT TUSKER 1ft long tusks 29-10-05 0 Solitary -

2 BUL-AWE ONE LIMB SMALLER 05-11-05 6,7-11-05,21-06-05 Solitary FEEDING

3 RONGRENGPAL ONE FORE LEG SMALLER & TAIL SHORT 08-09-051- 8,10,12,23,26-09-

05, 16-01-06 Solitary FEEDING4 PANDA MAKHNA WITH A SHORT TAIL 15-02-06 0 Solitary FEEDING

5 ALOKPANG 2 CALF& 4 ADULTS 25-08-05 26-08-05 Group of 6SEEN IN

AMPANGGRE6 HANGSAPAL FEMALE STUMPED TAIL 01-12-06 0 Group of 7 MOVEMENT7 PANDA 1 MALE WITH SHORT TUSK 20-03-06 0 Group of 3 -

8 AMPANGGRE FEMALE STUMPED TAIL 21-11-06 0 Solitary MOVEMENT9 RONGRENGPAL LEFT LEG SHORTER 27-08-06 0 Solitary MOVEMENT

10 RONGRENGPAL ONE LIMB SMALLER 25-05-06 28 and 31-05-06 SolitaryMOVEMENT

WITHIN AKING

11 PANDA ONE LIMB SMALLER 29-05-06 0 Solitary MOVEMENT12 BUL-AWE TUSKER & RIGHT LEG SMALLER 02-07-06 0 Solitary MOVEMENT13 RONGRENGPAL LARGE SIZE & TAIL SHORT 28-01-07 29-01-07 Solitary MOVEMENT14 RONGRENGPAL RIGHT LEG INJURED 27-10-07 0 Solitary MOVEMENT15 HALWA-ATONG ONE LEG INJURED 14-04-07 0 Solitary MOVEMENT16 REWAK BIG TUSKER 21-08-07 0 Group MOVEMENT

17 SIJUBIG TUSKER & SMALL TUSKER WITH RIGHT LEG

INJURED 05-10-07 14-10-07 Group of 12 FEEDING

35

Appendix 3. Information on death of wild elephants collected by Samrakshan Trust. This information is updated till July 2008

Elephant 1 Elephant 2 Elephant 3 Elephant 4 Elephant 5 Elephant 6 Elephant 7 Elephant 8

Sex Male Male Female Not known Male Not known Likely male Male

Tusker Yes No No Not known Yes Not known Not known Yes

Approx. Age 20 8 20 3 35 30 (secondary info) 20 30+

Date of death 12th April 2005

8th May, 2005 20th May, 2005 1st week June, 2005

3rd week June, 2005

Mid-September, 2006 Mid- October, 2006

1st week of November, 2006

Location

Balpakram National Park, Taidang

StreamAngratoli

RF

Wakalkona gittim, Dambuk Apal

aking Near Gaobari streamNear Gaobari

streamGoka aking

community forest

Badambari gittim adjoining Indo-

Bangladesh border Dambuk Aga aking

Probable cause of

death Spear woundInternal injury Spear wound

Drowning in Gaobari stream

Drowning in Gaobari stream Not known

A wound was found at the temple,

probably a bullet wound. Elephant

may have been killed for ivory or crop

damage

Secondary information from a

resident of the aking reveals that the

elephant was killed for ivory

36

Appendix 3 (contd..)

Elephant 9 Elephant 10 Elephant 11 Elephant 12 Elephant 13 Elephant 14 Elephant 15

Sex Not known Not known Male Male Female Male Unknown

Tusker No Not known Yes Yes No Yes Unknown

Approx. Age 15+About 2 years

(secondary infromation) 30 50 - 55 30 - 40 10 - 15 30+

Date of death

1st week of November,

20062nd week of February,

20071st week of June, 2007

1st week of October, 2007

2nd week of November, 2007

1st week of February,

20082nd week of June,

2008

LocationDambuk Aga

aking Taidang aking

Simakona in Dambuk Apal

aking near Indo-

Bangladesh border

New Rompa in Bonbera aking

Wakkal kona in Dambuk Apal

akingTaidang

akingSongitcham in Gongrot aking

Probable cause of death

Elephant was killed most

likely for meat. Villagers

consumed the meat. Elephant 8 and 9 were found in the

same location

The body was burnt by the Forest Department, leaving little evidence of

the cause of death. Villagers report that the calf fell of a 25 m cliff

Carcass was not found but

secondary information indicates

poaching for ivory

Speared and then injury apparently aggravated through fighting with other bull elephant.

Seemed to have slipped down a cliff finally

Could not be ascertained as the

body was completely rotten

and maggot infested.

Secondary information

indicates killing for meat

Carcass was burnt by the Forest Deptt before our reaching.

They attribute the

death to septicaemia

All that was left were pieces of bones

dispersed far from each other. No way of assertaining the

cause of death. Local infrormation

suggests there may have been a group

of hunters.

SAMRAKSHAN CHARITABLE TRUSTSamrakshan Charitable TrustBolsalgre, Baghmara - 794102South Garo Hills district, Meghalaya, IndiaPhone – 91-3639-222187Email: balpakram@gmail.comwww.samrakshan.org