Technical Brief: Review of Compensation Schemes for Agricultural and Other Damage Caused by Elephants

The IUCN African Elephant Specialist Group (AfESG) Human-Elephant Conflict Taskforce (HECWG) has been researching aspects of human-elephant conflict (HEC) since 1997 and is mandated to provide relevant technical advice to organizations or individuals concerned with this problem.

At the interface of elephant and human distribution in Africa elephants can be involved in: the consumption of many types of food and cash crops; damage to water supplies and fences; injury or killing of livestock; injury or death of people (WWF, 1997). In discussions about HEC within any forum, the issue of monetary compensation for losses caused by elephants is frequently raised. The compensation issue often overshadows discussion of the many other measures which can be used to mitigate HEC (Hoare, 1995).

The AfESG HECWG has reviewed the application of monetary compensation schemes for elephant damage in several places and finds little evidence that any have been particularly successful at mitigating the problem. Examples are briefly discussed.

Kenya

Compensation for damage by wildlife was paid under a national policy until 1989. In that year payments for crop damage were suspended because the system became unworkable. Widespead cheating on claims, high administration costs and lack of disbursable funds were cited as the main reasons for failure (Thouless, 1993). Compensation for human injury or loss of life remain, but in practice are viewed as woefully inadequate by victims' families (e.g. because payouts fail to keep pace with inflation) and almost unworkable by administrators (e.g. because assessment is done by a semi-autonomous wildlife authority whereas payouts are the legal responsibility of a workmen's compensation scheme in a separate ministry of Government).

Gabon

A nationwide survey of elephant crop raiding in Gabon interviewed nearly 3000 families in 218 villages. This study took about a year and is the largest survey of its kind in Africa. In the wide-ranging discussion and clear recommendations contained in the report, the author did not mention the issue of compensation for elephant damage (Lahm, 1996).

Ghana

A conference to discuss the country's most severe elephant problem around a forest National Park identified 14 measures (including compensation) that could be used to mitigate human-elephant conflict in some way. The idea of monetary compensation was not adopted in the recommendations, which focussed mainly on changing agricultural practices on farms around the park boundary (Barnes, 1997).

Southern Africa

Southern African counties are acknowledged to have wildlife policy environments which enable considerable experimentation with wildlife management measures at local level. In a recent review of policy and management of problem elephants in six countries of that region (Taylor, 2000), only one retained compensation for elephant damage (Botswana). The following are experiences from southern Africa:

Malawi

In well-monitored trials in the 1980s adjacent to a large protected area, the payment of compensation was demonstrated to have no beneficial effect on improving relations between wildlife authorities and neighbouring farmers (Bell, 1984).

Zimbabwe

A compensation scheme was tried by one district but abandoned when the number of claims quadrupled in the second year of operation (Taylor, 1993). Apart from vastly exceeding the expenditure budgeted for payments, this increase suggested that either bogus claims were being submitted or that farmers had reduced efforts to defend their crops. Significantly, the year of cessation (1991) was the third year that this district was allowed by central government to implement a locally-administered programme of wildlife utilisation and retain the revenue gained from it. The district simply could not afford the scheme and compensation has not been revived to date despite considerable growth of the programme and its associated revenue.

Botswana

Botswana is a relatively wealthy African country and compensation for wildlife damage is paid under a government policy. Payment is limited to damage caused by five species of which the elephant is the main one. In the 5 years since this scheme has been in place, approximately US$1.13 million (US$227 000 per year) has been disbursed.

A sociologist researching the compensation issue in Botswana recently articulated several problems (Envik, 2000). Most villagers and wildlife officials consulted indicated that the amount of compensation was disproportionately low compared to the value of damage and that it was reimbursed too slowly. Officials added that while the compensation scheme appeases some public suffering from wildlife conflict, it is not effective in preventing conflict and/or encouraging harmonious relations between affected communities and the wildlife authorities. They noted that when certain species were taken off the compensation list, the reported conflict incidents of that particular species decreased, but those for other compensatable ones increased. The only real benefit identified by wildlife officials was that the scheme ensured incidents of wildlife conflict were reported and this helped to identify regions which are most affected by human-elephant conflict.

Summary

Monetary compensation schemes for elephant damage appear to suffer from a considerable number of deficiencies. These can be divided into reasons for "a flawed concept" (1 - 3 below) and reasons for "practical problems" (4 - 8 below).

1. Compensation is unable to decrease the level of the problem (because the cause of the problem is not being addressed)
2. Compensation reduces the incentive for self-defence by farmers (and therefore could even exacerbate the scale of the problem)
3. Compensation cannot address the unquantifiable social 'opportunity costs' borne by people who are affected by the threat of problem elephants (Hoare 2000; Naughton et al 1999). This is a considerable component of HEC.

4. Compensation is cumbersome, expensive and slow to administer, (because of the need to train assessors, cover large areas, have stringent financial controls etc) and once embarked upon, potentially has no end point.
5. Compensation is open to considerable abuse or blatant corruption (e.g. through: bogus claims; inflated claims; deliberate cultivation in places where crops are likely to be damaged)
6. There are usually never sufficient funds to cover all compensation claims.
7. Payment of compensation to only some victims may cause disputes or social problems.
8. Where compensation schemes need to be promulgated in law, their ability to keep pace with changing economic circumstances or changes in social policy are hopelessly slowed down.

Conclusion

For the above reasons, the AfESG recommends against using monetary compensation for elephant damage. This AfESG believes that, unlike most other counter-measures against elephants, compensation can only at best address the symptoms and not the cause of the problem. It could even be argued that, at worst, compensation exacerbates the problem.

The AfESG does not, however, totally reject the idea of compensation in all circumstances. Compensation in the form of basic foodstuffs is a accepted way of relieving the effects of natural disasters, for example floods or drought. Once HEC was systematically studied by researchers, it was discovered that it usually only seriously affects relatively few people in a community. If such people can be identified and fair assessments of their plight made without cheating, there may be a place for locally-administered relief schemes which involve foodstuffs rather than money. There are unfortunately no known case studies from which to evaluate this idea. Other forms of replacement may be appropriate where other types of elephant damage occur, for example to water supplies, food storage facilities, livestock or fences.

References

Barnes R.F.W. 1997 A proposed solution to the Kakum elephant problem. In: Facing the Storm: Five years of research in and around Kakum National Park, Ghana. Ghana Wildlife Department, P O Box M239 Accra. Ghana. 18pp.

Bell R.H.V. 1984 The man-animal interface: an assessment of crop damage and wildlife control. In Conservation & Wildlife Management in Africa, (Eds Bell R.H.V. & Mcshane-Caluzi E.) US Peace Corps, Malawi: 387- 416.

Envik K. 2000 Living With Elephants: A Non-Government Organization (NGO) Based Strategy for Botswana. MSc Thesis, University of Calgary, Canada. 147 pp.

Hoare R. 2000 African elephants and humans in conflict: the outlook for coexistence. Oryx 34(1): 34-38.

Hoare R. 1995 Options for the control of elephants in conflict with people. Pachyderm 19: 54 - 63.

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

Naughton L., Rose, R. & Treves, A. 1999 The social dimensions of human-elephant conflict in Africa: a literature review and case studies from Uganda and Cameroon. A report to the African Elephant Specialist Group, Human-Elephant Conflict Taskforce, IUCN SSC Gland, Switzerland. 82pp.

Taylor R.D. 2000 . A review of problem elephant policies and management options in southern Africa. A report to the African Elephant Specialist Group, Human-Elephant Conflict Taskforce, IUCN SSC Gland, Switzerland. 70pp

Taylor R.D. 1993 Wildlife management and utilization in a Zimbabwean communal land: a preliminary evaluation in NyamiNyami District, Kariba. WWF MAPS Project Paper No. 32. WWF Southern Africa Regional Office P O Box CY 1409 Causeway, Harare, Zimbabwe. 23pp.

Thouless C. 1993 The Laikipia Elephant Project. Final Report. Kenya Wildlife Service and World Wide Fund for Nature Eastern Africa Regional Office, P O Box 68200 Nairobi , Kenya. 87pp.

WWF, (World Wide Fund for Nature). 1997 Conserving Africa's elephants: current issues and priorities for action. (eds. H.T. Dublin, T.O. McShane and J. Newby) , WWF International, 1196 Gland, Switzerland. 28pp

More HECWG pages:
Introduction
Products of the Human Elephant Conflict Working Group
> Human-Elephant Conflict Reviews and Case Studies
> Tools for the Study and Management of Human-Elephant Conflict
> Current Recommendations on HEC and Current Activities