table of contents · 2005-08-02 · land in populous asia is intense. in informal settings...

State of Asian Elephant Conservation in 2003 i

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ivThe people behind the audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ivelephant family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ivConservation Direct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv

Executive Summary: The state of wild Asian elephant conservation in 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vIndependent conservation audits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vInvesting in elephant conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vThe state of wild Asian elephant conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vCapacity to conserve wild elephants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .viChallenges for society, government and NGOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .viiSociety at large . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .viiThe elephant conservation establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii

Section I: Introduction to the report and study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2Scope and aims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2Terms of reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2The broader issue of NGO transparency & accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2Target audience and report structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3Assessment approach and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3Needs of elephants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3Comparative scorecards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3Conceptual basis of the assessment framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4The scorecard rating system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Data and information collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Section II: Condition of wild elephants and their habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7Elephant distribution: trends over time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7The causes of declining elephant numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8Assessing the status of wild elephants and the threats to their conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8Rationale behind the scorecard structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8Findings: the current status of wild Asian elephants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Country findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10The political dimension of elephant population declines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11War & civil strife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Politically driven settlement of elephant habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Section III: Countries’ capacity to conserve wild elephant populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Essential systems and institutions for elephant conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Comparative assessment of a country’s capacity to conserve elephants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Country scorecard assessment system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14General themes arising from the analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Laws compared to implementation capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Cultural empathy with elephants and will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19The role of the media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Status of science and knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22The need for a vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Section IV: Conservation charities and Asian elephant conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25How NGOs can make a difference: their role in Asian elephant conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25Government perceptions on conservation NGOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26How conservation NGOs with elephant projects are organising themselves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27The structure of the NGO community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27Asia-wide elephant conservation networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28NGO partnerships with scientific institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28Thematic areas of conservation activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Counting and mapping wild elephants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Employing international financial levers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31Resettlement and forest restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33Strengthening enforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33Piloting community-based means to control crop raiding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34The quality and impact of elephant conservation projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37A ‘Project Scorecard’ assessment methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37Projects considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38Findings of the scorecard analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Endpiece: Reflections on conducting an independent conservation audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

Table of contents

State of Asian Elephant Conservation in 2003 ii

List of Boxes

Box 1 The scorecard system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Box 2 Worked example of a method for rating strength of system elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6Box 3 Underlying values and baseline assumptions of the assessment framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6Box 4 Contraction of Asian elephant range over time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7Box 5 Elephant distributions in Asia and population trends 1995-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Box 6 Do people in Asia want to conserve elephants? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Box 7 Current issues: Planning corridors of elephant habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32Box 8 Current issues: law enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35Box 9 Current issues: Human-elephant conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36Box 10 Projects not assessed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38Box 11 The US Asian Elephant Conservation Act and Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39Box 12 Web-sites of projects assessed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

List of Tables

Table 1 Comparative rating of status of wild elephants in 10 Asian countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10Table 2 Diagnostic statistics on 10 Asian countries with wild elephant populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Table 3 Strength of four essential systems that together lead to elephant conservation

compared between 10 Asian countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Table 4 Strength of sub-system of the four essential systems that together lead to

elephant conservation compared between 10 Asian countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17Table 5 Assessment of focal activity areas of conservation NGOs with projects to

conserve wild Asian elephants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30Table 6 Conceptual links between the ‘Balanced scorecard’ and the project scorecard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37Table 7 Comparative rating of elephant conservation projects run by conservation NGOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40Table 8 Strength of five systems that together generate likelihood of conservation impact

in 21 Asian elephant conservation projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

List of Acronyms

AESG Asian Elephant Specialist Group of the IUCN

AREAS Asian Rhino and Elephant Action Strategy

BECT Biodiversity & Elephant Conservation Trust, Sri Lanka

CAT Cat Action Treasury

FFI Fauna & Flora International

IFAW International Fund for Animal Welfare

IDCP Integrated Conservation and Development Project

IUCN The World Conservation Union

INGO International non-government organisation

LNGO Local non-government organisation

NGO Non-government organisation

NNGO National non-government organisation

WWF World Wildlife Fund/World Wide Fund for Nature/WWF-the environment network

Project Manager for elephant family:Dugal Muller

Audit Advisory BoardDr. Iain Douglas-HamiltonDr. Widodo RamonoProf. Charles SantiapillaiProf. Raman SukumarProf. Chris Wemmer

Audit Report Review CommitteeDr. Ajay DesaiDr. Jamison ErvinPaul HannamSarah LairdKarl StrohmayerProf. Chris Wemmer

Final thanksThere are many people to thank. We are especiallyindebted to all those individuals – within NGOsand governments, as well as independents - whogenerously gave their time to talk frankly with us,share their knowledge, and facilitate our travels.We would like to mention them all by name butrespect their need for anonymity. We are alsograteful to the members of our advisory committeefor their guidance and advice; and to our reviewpanel for their helpful insights.

elephant family have provided the opportunity toundertake this fascinating project, and we thankthem for all their help, support and encouragement.Our thanks go also to McLaurin for their interestand help in media communications and to NikkiSantilli, Kristina Plenderlieth and Justin Hine forediting and design support.

Citation: Jepson, P & Canney, S (2003) The stateof wild Asian elephant conservation in 2003. Anindependent audit for elephant family. elephantfamily and Conservation Direct, London andOxford. www.elephantfamily.org

©Conservation Direct 2003. All material in thisreport is subject to copyright protection, andreproduction in whole or in part other than for thepurpose of promoting Asian elephant conservation,is expressly forbidden, without the prior consent ofConservation Direct.

Note: The assessments and analyses presented inthis report represent our independent viewpointbased on the information available to us. Wemay have over-looked information which couldinfluence the ratings. As a result this report shouldbe considered as just one input into any decision-making process.

State of Asian Elephant Conservation in 2003 iii

Concerns are growing about the future of the Asianelephant. Numbers of wild Asian elephants are onlya tenth of their African relatives and demand forland in populous Asia is intense. In informalsettings conservationists air the view that thedecline of Asian elephants is accelerating, thatgovernments are unable or unwilling to act and thatconservation charities lack the capacity and unity tomake a difference.

Not only is the Asian elephant an awesomecreature, but it has played a role in shaping ourcultural history. For four thousand years theelephant has helped shape Asian civilisationsthrough its capacities as a military machine, tractor,pile driver and fork-lift. It has never beendomesticated: working elephants are caught fromthe wild and sometimes return. The relationshipbetween humans and elephants is unique and goesfar beyond utility. We can relate to elephants andelephants can relate to us. This is what sets theAsian elephant apart and is why it has a centralplace in Hinduism and Buddhism - the two majorworld faiths that originated in Asia.

The Asian elephant risks fading into extinction nowthat its economic worth has been replaced bymachines, unless we face up to three crucialquestions:

1. do we want Asian elephants or don’t we; if so

2. how much land are we willing to grant them; and

3. what should be done with the surplus animals?

The message of this report is that the situation forelephants looks bad, but there is still hope if thereis concerted and co-ordinated action.

The people behind the audit

elephant familyThe work was commissioned by elephant family, anewly formed NGO who believes that societiesshould treat elephants with the respect, care andadmiration we would wish to extend to any familymember (see www.elephantfamily.org). Theyrecognise that building a world where humans andelephants can live in harmony is fraught withdifficulties and conflicts, but believe that mostpeople desire such a world and that if we acttogether in a spirit of honesty, innovation andtransparency we can make a difference forelephants and for people.

Conservation DirectConservation Direct is an Oxford-based think-tankon conservation policy. The audit was conducted bythe founding directors, Dr Paul Jepson and DrSusan Canney.

Paul Jepson followed a career in urbanconservation in the U.K. before moving intointernational conservation in 1991. He is aspecialist in conservation strategy and planning. Aformer chairman of the Oriental Bird Club, heestablished and managed the Birdlife InternationalIndonesia Programme (1991–97). He was awardedhis Doctorate from Oxford University in 2001 for athesis on protected area policy in Indonesia.

Susan Canney worked on various conservationprojects in Africa and Europe before joining theGreen College Centre for Environmental Policy &Understanding in 1993. In 2001 she was awarded aDoctorate by Oxford University for research onhuman use and vegetation change in MkomaziGame Reserve, Tanzania.

State of Asian Elephant Conservation in 2003 iv

Preface

This report represents an independent view on thestate of wild Asian elephant conservation. Itcontains assessments of 1) the capacity of ten Asiancountries to conserve and manage elephants, 2)Twenty-one, projects run by non-governmentorganisations (NGOs) and their capacity to have animpact in their chosen area of elephantconservation. Systems for action are ratedaccording to strength and are presented in twoscorecards (Tables 3 & 7). The results show thattwo countries (India and Sri Lanka) havereasonable capacity; four have fair capacity(Malaysia, Thailand, China and Myanmar); andfour have weak capacity (Cambodia, Indonesia,PDR Lao, Vietnam). More projects run by nationalNGOs were rated as having good potential forimpact compared with projects run by high profileinternational conservation NGOs.

Overall, our assessment is that capacity for Asianelephant conservation falls far short of that neededto resolve the complex issues that conserving anintelligent, powerful and wide-ranging animalentails. Without far-reaching reforms in theorganisation and financing of elephantconservation, the animal will fade away acrosslarge parts of its range, and many people will beterrorised and killed by displaced herds. Thesereforms need to embrace the operations ofgovernment and non-government actors and therelationship between the two.

Independent conservation auditsConservation NGOs are mandated by their claim torepresent the values and aspirations of peopleconcerned about nature and the environment.However, NGOs sometimes give themselvesglowing reports by cherry-picking results fromtheir most successful projects. This practice isunfair to supporters and constrains self-analysisand lesson-learning in conservation. As a result,demand is growing for independent conservation‘audits’ conducted by independent experts.

Performance assessment is new and untested in theconservation field. It touches on major issuesconcerning the role of context, the lack of harddata, and reservations about accountability. At theheart of this report is a unique scorecardsystem, which proposes a tentative framework for

independent conservation audits. Our approachrecognises that conservation is a complex system ofelements that together lead to effective action. Wehave designed scorecards to rate the strength of keysystems elements relating to a country’s capacity toconserve elephants (Table A) and an organisationor project’s capacity to have meaningful and lastingimpact in its chosen area (Table B).

Investing in elephant conservationThe twentieth-century NGO has been characterisedas an outsider challenging the system, spot-lightingproblems and raising funds on the back of publicanger and guilt. In contrast, the successful twenty-first-century NGO is expected to be part of thesystem, with a focus on solutions and attractingfunds through convincing supporters that they are agood investment.

The present report is for anyone wishing to supportthis new ethos. The audit aims to:

• provide an independent assessment of the stateof Asian elephant conservation

• empower people to make informed choices concerning which elephant projects they support

• help improve the performance and standards ofconservation delivery by introducing independent performance measurement linked to greater accountability and transparency

To this end, we provide an overview of the issues inelephant conservation from a social as well as ascientific perspective. We explain how elephantconservation is organised and introduce the mainplayers and their roles and responsibilities. Ourassessment framework provides a first attempt torate projects in terms of an investment in elephantconservation.

The state of wild Asian elephantconservationIf present trends continue, the evidence suggeststhat the Asian elephant will retreat from much of itsremaining range to a few scattered parks crammedwith elephants, providing a tourist spectacle andincome for governments.

State of Asian Elephant Conservation in 2003 v

Executive Summary: The state of wild Asian elephantconservation in 2003

The Asian elephant now has a patchy distributioncovering the Indian sub-continent, Indochina (witha small population in SW China) and parts of southeast Asia. In India and Sri Lanka, elephants arepacked into relatively small forest areas. InMyanmar (Burma), Lao and Cambodia it is theopposite: elephants are thinly scattered across thelargest remaining forest block in Asia.

Conflict between humans (settler farmers) andelephants has escalated over the last five years. Inseveral locations across Asia there is war betweenpeople and elephants. Desperate farmers, fearingfor their crops, property and family, but also of theconsequences of taking direct action against aprotected species, are discreetly poisoningelephants or paying corrupt police officers to shootthem.

Table A: Comparison between 10 Asiancountries of the strength of four essential systemsthat together lead to elephant conservation

The uncomfortable truth is that ignoring theelephant issue might suit governments. On the onehand, managing a reduction of elephantpopulations in line with agricultural expansionwould require culling or capture. The formerwould cause a public outcry and the latter hasenormous recurrent costs. On the other hand,

protecting national forest estates and clampingdown on poaching syndicates means ending thecorrupt land and trading deals of local politicians,army commanders and bureaucrats. This wouldrisk exposing the true limits of state power.

Conserving elephants requires good governance,long-term planning, and the need to balance long-term and short-term goals and the needs of societywith that of the individual. In terms of governance,the needs of elephants are much the same as ourown needs.

Conserving wild elephants means protectingforests, which are vital to maintaining theecological functions of climate stability, cleanwater and erosion control. These are necessary tosafeguard economic growth, social stability andquality livelihoods. The worsening state of wildelephant populations indicates serious futureproblems in meeting these wider goals.

Capacity to conserve wild elephantsGovernment and NGOs together lack the capacityto conserve and manage wild Asian elephantpopulations. There is little political will andgovernment wildlife and forestry agencies are atbest ineffectual, at worst dysfunctional.

Neither governments nor NGOs are admitting thescale of the problem, nor are they putting in placethe long-term policies, programmes and fundingthat are required to ensure the survival of wildelephant herds in 20 years’ time. Elephantconservation is largely being treated as if it were atechnical problem that requires better knowledgeand planning, when in fact it has become a socialproblem.

India and Sri Lanka have the best capacity toconserve elephants and their forest habitats, due tostrong cultural regard for elephants and longestablished wildlife and forestry agencies.Indonesia is rated worst, in part because thegovernment has allowed implementation agenciesto collapse.

Competition for funds and publicity among thelarger NGOs results in a divided movement that isnot making best use of its assets. It also results inthe diversion of funds from conservation toinstitutional survival, self-interest, and a lack oftransparency (and therefore learning).

Local NGOs performed well due to long-termengagement with the locality, and well targeted

State of Asian Elephant Conservation in 2003 vi

State of Asian Elephant Conservation in 2003 vii

interventions, but without a co-ordinated country-wide strategy their impact is relatively smallcompared to the size of the elephant problem.

The people working within international NGOs areaware of the issues militating against elephantconservation, but these are not being translated intoprogrammes. As a result, those with a clear focuson wildlife crime rated best, while those trying tocope with habitat loss without engaging with thelocal causes rated worst.

Challenges for society,government and NGOs

Society at largeSociety needs to debate three crucial questions:

1) Do we want wild Asian elephants or don’t we?2) How much land are we willing to grant them?3) What should be done with the surplus animals?

Currently, society pigeon-holes elephantconservation as a wildlife issue and shiftsresponsibility (and guilt) for its future to wildlifedepartments, conservation NGOs and biologists.Elephants are unlike any other animal. The scaleand complexity of issues surrounding theirconservation and management far exceed thecapacity and mandate of any one governmentdepartment. As a result, a diverse group ofinstitutions must take responsibility for theirconservation and work together to put in place a setof social infrastructure (laws, protected areas,institutions etc.) to enable management of thehuman-elephant relationship.

The amount of money dedicated to elephantconservation needs to match the scale of theproblem and the enormous public empathy forelephants. This study estimates that approximatelyUS$4 million per year has been spent on Asianelephant conservation since 1999,1 yet the view ofexperts in the region is that a minimum of US$80million per year is required, Asia-wide, to starthaving an impact. This is a figure equivalent to theannual salary bill of Manchester United FootballClub.

Table B. Comparative rating of elephantconservation projects run by NGOs

If governments of Asian countries are to control theforces threatening wild elephants, they mustaddress politically difficult issues such as cullingand corruption. In particular they will need toaddress the issues of politically-vested interestspromoting settlement of forest areas to create ‘votebanks’.

The elephant conservation establishmentGovernments and NGOs need to face up to thescale of the problem and put in place the long-termpolicies, programmes and funding that are required

1 US$1 million from WWF AREAS, US$1 million from theremaining NGO sector and US$2 million from the Indiangovernment

to ensure the survival of wild elephant herds in 20years’ time. At present many activities are ad hocand reactive. Without a long-term vision or clearstrategy the limited funds that are available will notbe used to best effect.

NGOs need to recognise that elephant conservationis a government responsibility and accept that theirrole is to support and complement governmentinitiatives. They need to avoid publicity that mightcreate the impression, in the public mind, that civilsociety can secure a future for elephants givenadequate funds. In reality, NGOs lack the mandate,the inter-agency influence and the inter-disciplinary insights and skills to make the requiredimpact.

Conservation NGOs need to work together to lobbyfor and assist in the reform and development ofempowered, professional and motivatedgovernment agencies. This is not the same as tryingto patch up dysfunctional and weak governmentagencies, and may involve challenging the politicaland bureaucratic status quo.

All actors need to find ways to put asideorganisational rivalries and work together to builda broad-based social movement for elephantconservation that transcends different structures

and institutions of society. As part of this agenda,there is a need to strengthen public understanding,knowledge and attitudes towards elephants andtheir conservation and instil throughout society asense of respect and responsibility for wildelephants

To maintain their credibility and integrity inthe long-term, NGOs involved in elephantconservation need to improve their transparencyand accountability. Important initial steps include:a) improving access to online informationconcerning strategy, short-term goals andperformance; b) greater openness concerning theamount of funds raised and their use. NGOs alsoneed to be clearer about the source of their mandateand demonstrate that they are representing alegitimate constituency or social value.

Independent conservation audits have the potentialto strengthen the credibility, legitimacy andperformance of conservation NGOs and therebyhelp attract greater investments of funds and timein the cause. Much more effort is needed in thisarea and the concept and merits of independentassessment needs to be promoted and discussedmuch more widely among conservationpractitioners than is currently the case.

State of Asian Elephant Conservation in 2003 viii

Scope and Aims

Terms of reference

This report represents an independent view of thestate of wild Asian elephant conservation. We weretasked by elephant family to assess the efficacy ofelephant conservation projects run by conservationNGOs (charities) with a view to promotingimproved performance.

They asked us to produce a ‘Which guide’1 toelephant projects based on the idea that theperformance of in-situ elephant conservation canbe improved if people (conservationists) areempowered to make informed choices concerningwhich projects to support2. This is the underlyingpremise of the successful consumer unions andassociations in Europe and the US.

A familiar feature of consumer reports is thescorecards comparing specifications and thequality of products and services. elephant familyasked us to apply similar tools to the conservationdomain.

The broader issue of NGO transparency& accountability

In recent years ‘civil society’, the sphere of activitybetween the state and markets, has expanded. Thenumber of non-government organisations hasproliferated: they have become a significantinfluence on public policy; users of publicresources; and play an increasing role in thedelivery of many public services.

As NGOs become part of the mainstream they arerealising that along with increased power andinfluence comes the responsibilities ofaccountability and transparency. This meansproviding stakeholders with information ondecision-making and performance. Theconservation movement is starting to address thisimportant, but complex, challenge.

This report focuses on the performance dimensionof transparency and accountability. It is part of anon-going research effort to devise frameworks and

indicators by which performance can be measuredand assessed. To date most activity in this area hasbeen conducted by international conservationNGOs seeking to measure progress towardstargets3 and motivated, to a large degree, by theneed to demonstrate results to their major donors4.

NGOs are mandated by their claim to represent thevalues and aspirations of people concerned aboutnature and the environment. However whencommunicating with supporters, NGOs tend to givethemselves glowing reports by cherry-pickingresults from their most successful projects.Recognition is growing that this practice is unfairto supporters and constrains self-analysis andlessons-learning in conservation. As a result, manyare calling for independent conservation ‘audits’where established and experiencedconservationists, without an NGO affiliation,assess performance on behalf of publicconservation constituencies, using a systematic,transparent and verifiable methodology. This reportrepresents a pioneering attempt at an independentconservation audit5.

At the heart of this report is a unique scorecardsystem which is our tentative framework andmethodology for independent conservation audits.Our time and resources for this complexundertaking were limited. We hope that theframework presented herein will provide a forumfor discussion and a resource to build upon in thefuture. Despite its experimental nature andundoubted limitations, we believe our frameworkprovides a firmer basis for understanding thecontext of civil society action and assessing thecomparative strengths of conservation projects thanis currently available. Overall, it is a first shot atidentifying the key dimensions of successfulelephant conservation.

State of Asian Elephant Conservation in 2003 2

Section I: Introduction to the report and study

1 The name of a popular UK consumer magazine.2 Either through donations of funds, in-kind work,

volunteering or simply taking an active interest in the project story.

3 The Conservation Measures Partnership of WWF, WCS,Ci, TNC etc.

4 Haley, J & M. Sorgenfrie. Measuring success? Issues inperformance management. Key note paper for INTRACS5th International Evaluation Conference, April 2003. TheNetherlands.

5 See Randerson, J. 2003. Nature’s best buys.New Scientist, 31 March 2003, 32-35.

Target audience and report structureAccording to a recent report by the UK-consultancy, SustainAbility6, the twentieth centuryNGO was an outsider challenging the system, spot-lighting problems, with strategies centred on publicanger and guilt and communicating in sound bites,with single-issue campaigns. In their view, thesuccessful twenty-first century NGO willincreasingly be part of the system, focus onsolutions, generate income by convincingsupporters that they are good investments andpursue multi-dimensional campaigns.

This report is for anyone wishing to support thisnew ethos. We provide an overview of the issues inelephant conservation from a social as well as ascientific perspective. We explain how elephantconservation is organised and introduce the mainplayers and their roles and responsibilities. Ourassessment framework provides a first attempt torate projects as a conservation investment.

As such we envisage users of this report as thepublic constituencies for conservation, comprisinggovernment, corporate, foundation, philanthropicand individual supporters as well as conservationprofessionals managing wild elephant conservationprojects.

The remainder of this section briefly introduces thescope and conceptual underpinnings of ourassessment framework. The report itself is thenstructured into three sections. The first sectionreviews the condition of wild Asian elephants andtheir habitat. The second section assesses thecapacity of each country to conserve wildelephants. Together these two sections describe theconservation context within which conservationNGOs operate. The third and final section, reportson the response of the conservation NGOs and theperformance of their projects focusing onconservation of wild Asian elephants.

Assessment approach andmethodsWe started by asking the questions, what do wildelephants need to survive, and what systems mustsocieties have in place to provide for these needs?

Needs of elephantsElephants need a lot of space. They are socialanimals that live in herds led by a matriarch which

are part of wider inter-breeding clans. They live forabout the same length of time as we do (around 70years). As a general rule of thumb, they consume135-300 kg of plant matter and up to 225 litres ofwater each day. To live free in a reasonably naturalway they need about 100-600 km2, depending onthe quality of the habitat7. Elephant societiesoperate at densities ranging from 0.1/km2 (1elephant for every 10km2) to 2/km2 (one elephantper 0.5km2). High densities can adversely affect thehabitat: in deciduous forest this can happen atdensities of around 2/km2.8 To put this figure intoperspective, it can be compared with the north ofScotland which we deem to be sparsely populated,yet has a human density of 3/km2.

The large spatial and temporal scales over whichelephants live their lives means that theirconservation ultimately has to be the responsibilityof government. Conservation charities can givesupport in crucial areas, but they lack the mandateand resources to control the large areas thatcomprise the seasonal range of the elephantpopulations to be conserved. Similarly, they areunable to ensure the long-term continuity of policyand investment in the same way that governmentscan. Only governments can mandate and ensure theco-ordinated action of the various sectors involved-wildlife, forestry, land use, agriculture, water,transport infrastructure, industrial development etc.What is clear is that the scale of the effort toconserve elephants means that governments andNGOs must act together.

Comparative scorecardsBench-marking or score-carding is a powerful toolfor improving performance, and is commonplace inmany walks of life. Its use in consumer reports hasdriven major improvements and innovations inproduct service quality. However consumerproduct surveys employ free-market mechanismsto drive improvements. Normally, they do notdistinguish between the contexts of production andhave little concern for the fate of the companiesproducing inferior products or services.

Conservation projects are not directly comparableto a consumer product. For example, the context ofoperations has a major bearing on the design andperformance of a conservation project, whilst theethos of the conservation movement should be thatdonors and supporters will want to help poorer


6 SustainAbility, ‘The 21st Century NGO: in the market forchange’ http://www.sustainability.com/publications/

7 Sukumar, R (1989) The Asian Elephant: ecology and management. Cambridge University Press.

8 Ajay Desai.

performing projects respond appropriately andachieve their full potential. Moreover conservationprofessionals are obviously keen for their projectsto be as effective as possible. To deal with thisdifference we devised two scorecards, one to assessand compare the capacity of countries to conservewild elephants (Country Scorecard) and one toassess the potential for NGO projects to make ameaningful and lasting contribution to develop,strengthen or maintain this capacity (ProjectScorecard). Each scorecard represents anassessment approach that draws on concepts andprinciples from business performancemeasurement (e.g. the Balanced Scorecard9),consumer reports (easily accessible scorecardformats) and systems theory.

Comparative performance or rating is successful ifa) the people involved are impartial andtrustworthy; b) the system is credible; c) partiesinvolved agree on the system and what is beingmeasured; d) differences in operational context areaccounted for; e) ratings can be substantiated bydata; f) consistent, reliable and timely data can becollated; g) the process is open and transparent. Thedifficulty of satisfying these criteria is a majorimpediment to improving accountability in theNGO sector. Our framework represents a genuineeffort to overcome points (a) and (b), also (d)through (g) above, and a contribution to meeting(c), namely the creation of a system or standardupon which conservation NGOs can agree.

Conceptual basis of the assessmentframeworkConservation is usually approached on the premisethat a suite of inputs will lead to certain outcomes.For example, additional enforcement personnelwill result in a reduction in poaching. Often thechoice of inputs depends on the professionalbackgrounds of those designing a project. Aconservation biologist might stress the need forinputs designed to expand the knowledge basewhereas an economist might argue for inputs thatchange market incentives. Our view is that suchapproaches are valid where the context ofconservation operations is relatively simple orwhere efficient structures of public administrationare in place. In the case of Asian elephants, thescale at which they live introduces massivecomplexity to the conservation task and most Asian

countries have relatively weak governmentinstitutions.

An alternative approach is to think of conservationas a system – a connected assemblage of entitiesthat together lead to the actions and transformationsneeded to achieve the goal of elephantconservation. An everyday example of this line ofthinking is exemplified by Chelsea football club’srecent purchase of several star players followingtheir takeover by a Russian billionaire. Footballpundits were quick to point out that a team of stars(inputs) does not amount to a star team (outcomes)capable of winning trophies (ultimate goal). Sportsfans understand that winning emerges from, amongother things, a combination of individual player’stalent, quality coaching, team spirit and fitnessregimes, and that each of these describes a complexunity of inter-relations, i.e a system.

The same is true of conservation. We can ask whatsystems need to be in place to conserve elephantsand rank the strength (status) of each system. At thescale of a nation it should be possible to define andidentify the key systems (or factors) whoseinteraction would create the conditions for elephantconservation. We regard the purpose ofconservation NGOs as helping to create, strengthenand/or support these systems. We believe it is alsopossible to define and identify the group of factorsthat together lead to conservation ‘impact’, definedas meaningful and lasting strengthening of one ormore elements of the conservation system.

This approach creates the possibility to compareprojects irrespective of their specialist role (e.g.enforcement, protected area planning or education)and, to a lesser degree, independent of their size,budget and age. We believe that this approach hasthe potential to provide a useful guide for thosewishing to invest in conservation.

The scorecard rating systemEach scorecard is based on a systems hierarchy. Wehave identified the key elements (a “level 1”system) that in combination can lead to elephantconservation. We have also listed the assembly offactors (level 2 sub-systems) that combine to createeach key element. At a country scale we considerthe key (level 1) systems to be ‘will’, ‘legalframeworks’, ‘resources’. and ‘implementationbodies’. At the project scale we consider them to be‘vision & strategy’, ‘organisational systems’,‘team & skill’, ‘track-record’ and ‘wider


9 see Kaplan, R. S. & Norton. D.P (1996) Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management tool.Harvard Business Review. Jan-Feb, 75-85.

impact’. We do not distinguish between therelative importance of each element. The purposeis to look at the effectiveness of the system

architecture. To this end each scorecard is designedto rate the strength of each element of the systemand the relationships between them.

Level 2 systems are rated on the basis of setsof objective statements. The extent to which each is

Boxes represent a key (level 1 system), inside each the righthand column lists level 2 systems. Each level 2 system has a setof objective and indicative measures (See Box 2)

present is ranked on simple scales. These scales arenot robust measures. They are guides designed tobuild consistency, rigour and impartiality into our

rating of each element, which has alarge element of subjectivity onaccount of poor data quality andavailability in the field.

Additional detail on our assessmentframework is provided in Sections IIand III where the completedscorecards and findings are discussed.

The advantages of such a structuredassessment approach are that it:1.clearly sets out areas of neglect in

the operational context; 2.shows areas within an organisation’s

operations where effectiveness couldbe improved by additional focus;

3.allows periodic auditing to trackperformance over time and identify what is working and what is not.

Nonetheless, the process and theframeworks of this assessmentinevitably reflect the values andassumptions of its compilers, andthose who do not agree with thesewill find the present survey lessuseful. The key values andassumptions that inform thisassessment are summarised in Box 3and were defined on the basis ofliterature review, a series ofexploratory interviews withconservationists who have each beenresident in Asian countries, and ourown experience as managers of fieldconservation projects.

Data and informationcollectionMeasures leading to the rating of keyelements of each scorecard systemwere scored over a nine-month period(September 2002 to June 2003) on the

basis of a review of literature and policy; strategyand project documents; transcriptions of 139 face-to-face interviews conducted with professionalseither working on Asian elephant conservationprojects or working in government wildlifedepartments: and field visits to six Asian countries.

A related purpose of the face-to-face interviews wasto gain insights and perceptions concerning the issues


Wider (Social) Impact (Transformations)

How can wegenerate thepolitical andpublic support forour vision?

Political will

Public support

Civil societyactivism

Capacity to Act (Soft systems)

To deliver onobjectives whatcapacity do weneed?

Team

OrganisationalcultureMandate

Project Delivery (Transactions)

Have we deliveredwhat is expectedand promised?

Annual Targets

Short-termobjectivesStrategic goals

STATUS OF ELEPHANTSWhat is thecondition ofwild elephantpopulations?

PopulationnumbersLevel ofpoachingStatus of habitats

Organisational Systems (Hard systems)

To deliver ourstrategy whatorganisationalsystems arerequired?

ManagementsystemsFundraisingPhysical assets

Accountability

MISSIONVision

Strategy

Openness

Country scorecard (above) Project scorecard (below)

IMPLEMENTATIONAre thereimplementationagencies withempowered andmotivated staff?

Parks & wildlifedepartmentsEnforcementagenciesplanning bodies

WILLIs there politicalwill and publicconcern for theelephants?

National politicalwillConcerned urbaneliteLocal political will

RESOURCESIs there thetechnical know-how and funds toguide policy andmanagement?

FinancialresourcesTechnicalknowledge

FRAMEWORKSIs there a solidlegal and policybasis for elephantconservation andmanagement?

LegalinstrumentsPolicyinstruments

Box 1 Schematic representation of scorecards

and politics of Asian elephant conservation. All theinterviews were conducted in confidence and manypeople spoke honestly and off the record. We heardimportant and widespread perspectives on elephantconservation that receive little attention in the

literature produced by government and NGOs. Inreporting these perspectives, we often quote thespeaker to better represent the sentiments of peopleliving and working with elephant.


Box 2 Worked example of method for rating strength of each system elementIn the Project Scorecard ‘Vision’ is a level 2 system. A measurable objective of this system is ‘actionsguided by a compelling strategy (M1) which were sub-divided into statements (M1.2) that could bescored. Each statement was weighted to come to an overall rating.

Actions guided by a compelling vision

Vision

State the shared long-term vision

Explain values & principles that guide action

Score for M1:

M1

A B C

M1.1

M1.2

Mission Weightings

Projects

0.5 0.5

0.15

0.5 2.0

1.0 0.5 2.0

0.5 0.0 0.0

Scores for M1.1 Vision statement0 no statement of conservation vision1 generalised statement ‘save elephants’,

secure future with no time scale2 statement includes actions but has no

time scale3 clear mid-term (5-14 yr) vision4 clear long-term (15-25 yr) vision

Box 3 Underlying values and baseline assumptions of the assessment framework

• The conservation of wild elephants requires a response at the level of society because of the large spatial and time scales over which elephant conservation must be approached.

• A societal response requires a set of social infrastructure (laws, protected areas, institutions etc.) toenable management of the human-elephant relationship across scales and over time.

• Conservation bodies collectively have the responsibility for generating a societal response in favourof elephants: their role is to create a vision, generate the political and public support for this visionand assist with its delivery.

• Network building is highly desirable as it may be the only solution to combat the causes of loss inmany cases. A healthy conservation movement is one that has a dynamic blend of small spontaneousprojects and large projects run by established conservation bodies.

• Conservation also requires innovation, which comes through open and responsive interactions withsociety and fellow conservationists.


The focus of this report is the activity ofconservation projects and organisations, howeverthis needs to be looked at in context. First, we needto know the conservation status of elephants andtheir habitat, coupled with the severity of threats toeach. We analysed these on a country-by-countrybasis, because the state of elephant conservationreflects the socio-political culture of the countryconcerned.

Elephant distribution: trendsover timeAt the time of the Pharaohs, Asian elephants werefound from Iraq east to China and possibly south toJava. Their distribution has shrunk as humanagricultural civilisations have expanded, as shownin Box 4. It should be noted that the historicaldistribution on Borneo shown is controversial.

Section II: Condition of wild elephants and their habitat

?Elephant populations of the Tigris-Euphrates basin extinct by 7th century BC

Elephants lost in western India and Java during the 11-17th centuries

Elephants extinct in northern China by 200AD and all but a remnant population in SW China by c1700

Areas supporting elephants at the beginning of the colonial era, c1700

Distribution at the end of the colonial area

Present day distribution

KEY:

Elephants once ranged from Iraq tothe Yangtse in China, south Sumatraand perhaps also Java

Box 4 Contraction of Asian elephant range over time

The causes of declining elephantnumbersThe main threats to elephants can be categorised as:

• threats to the animal from poaching and huntingfor ivory, meat, and sport; the killing of crop-raiding animals; and the capture of baby elephantsfor tourist shows.

• threats to elephant habitat through forestdestruction for smallholder agriculture; large- scaleplantation development and infrastructure projects.These reduce the resources of food and shelteravailable to elephants as well as severingmigration routes that enable access to resourcessuch as refuges, water, salt and seasonal foods(see Box 7, page 32). Replacing elephanthabitat with agriculture brings the animalinto the proximity of palatable crops thereforeincreases conflict with humans (see Box 9, page 36).

Assessing the status of wildelephants and the threats to theirconservationMeasures need to be chosen according to the scaleof analysis. In this section, we focus on thoseappropriate to an Asia-wide analysis. The measuresare intended to place the different elephant rangeswithin an Asia-wide context. More detailedanalyses over smaller areas would require theconsideration of other factors. Elephant densities,for example, will vary from place to place within arange, district, or locality according to factors suchas habitat type and hunting pressure.

We chose a suite of diagnostic statistics thatportrayed not only the current state of play, but alsotrends over time, as these are important inidentifying priorities for any conservation effort1.(Their construction will be the topic of a furtherpaper.) These statistics were grouped under the fourheadings below and are shown in table 1.

1. Elephant population numbers.2. Elephant habitat.3. Killing of elephants.4. Human-elephant conflict.

Rationale behind the scorecardstructure

Elephant population numbersElephant numbers are an important starting pointbut to be useful in terms of understanding theforces at work, we used them to calculate anindicator that captures how well a country isconserving its elephants in terms of numbers, howmuch lee-way exists (i.e. the amount of habitat ithas in which to conserve elephants), and howelephant numbers are responding to the forces atwork within the country. The indicator is acomposite of three diagnostics which are: theproportion of the world’s elephant populationcontained within that country, the density ofelephants (i.e. elephant numbers relative to theamount of remaining habitat), and the populationtrend (whether it was increasing or decreasing andhow rapidly).

HabitatWe estimated the state of elephant habitat byconsidering the amount left in relation to elephantnumbers;2 the rate at which it was being lost; itsconfiguration; and the degree to which it wasprotected.

Killing of elephantsThese metrics indicate how severe or widespreadare the threats to elephants from poachers, huntersand poisoners, killing for ivory, meat, sport and toremove crop-raiders. The main sources includeorganised syndicates that sometimes involve thearmy and police and are particularly prevalent inIndochina; individual poachers and hunters whomay or may not be organised into small mafiabands; and local level shooting and poisoning ofcrop-raiding elephants (see Box 9, page 36).

Human-elephant conflictThis measures the severity of human-elephantconflict in terms of frequency; how widespread theoccurrences are; the ease with which elephants canbe chased away; and the occurrence of deaths, bothhuman and elephant.


1 The degree of ‘uniqueness’ was not included: Borneo’s elephants are regarded as unique by many and thereforedeserving of particular conservation focus.

2 Habitat stability included measures of remaining habitat(km2); sufficient area available for present population (carrying capacity), stable tracts of habitat; annual change in forest cover 1990-2000 (km2) and annual rateof forest change 1990-2000 (%) as indicators of the pressures on elephant habitat (even though not all forestloss entails the loss of elephant habitat).

Interpreting the scorecardThe scorecard is intended to give a picture of theelements involved in elephant survival. It would bedifficult to score highly on all indicators as, forexample, success in conserving numbers generallyinvolves high conflict, and a requirement for largerareas of habitat. Countries with few elephants dueto heavy poaching, such as Cambodia, will havelow levels of conflict, and an abundance of habitat.

Note also that the overall measure is a weightedaverage of the four indicators, with the weightingdesigned to indicate success in elephantconservation.

Findings: the current status ofwild Asian elephantsThe Asian elephant now has a patchy distributioncovering the Indian sub-continent, Indochina (witha small population in SW China) and parts of southeast Asia. Box 5 shows the current status ofelephant populations. In India and Sri Lanka,elephants are packed into relatively small forestareas. In Myanmar (Burma), Lao, Cambodia it isthe opposite: elephants are thinly scattered acrossthe largest remaining forest block in Asia. Thereason for this apparent paradox is war.


Box 5 Wild elephant distributions in Asia and indicative population trends 1995 - 2002

INDIA 62%

MYANMAR 11%

SW CHINA 0.5%

THAILAND 5%THAILAND 5%THAILAND 5%CAMBODIA 1%CAMBODIA 1%CAMBODIA 1%CAMBODIA 1%CAMBODIA 1%CAMBODIA 1%

INDONESIA(SUMATRA) 5%

VIETNAM 0.2%

MALAYSIA 6%

LAO 2%LAO 2%LAO 2%LAO 2%

Current elephant distribution

Population increasing across range

Population generally stable,indication of increase in parts of range

Population generally stable, but cleardeclines in some parts of range

Clear declines throughout range

Population generally stable or increases insome & decreases in other parts of range

KEY:

Country findingsIndia and Sri Lanka score best in terms of thenumbers of individual elephants that have beenconserved. In India it appears that numbers areincreasing in some areas, however there issignificant decline in the habitat and populations inthe north-east. Even in the southern states, severeivory poaching has reduced the numbers of adultbulls and led to distorted sex ratios of between 1:12and 1:100, but this is potentially reversiblecompared to habitat loss, through strongerprotection. Sri Lanka does not have to cope withthe ivory poaching issue because few of itselephants bear tusks, but nearly 100-120 a year arelost to trap guns used in crop defence or forpoaching other game. More males are lost becausethey inhabit areas closer to human settlement3.

Table 1: Comparative rating of status of wildelephants in 10 Asian countries

In both India and Sri Lanka, this ‘success’ inconserving numbers in islands of habitat led to highlevels of human-elephant conflict, while in someareas elephants are moving into new regionsbecause of disturbances in their original homeranges. The rising use of poisons and explosivesreflects a decreasing level of tolerance. At the sametime, increasing demand and easier travel appearsto facilitate the spread of knowledge about thesetechnologies4.

Sumatra is moving towards the situation in Indiawhere forest clearance is increasingly constrainingelephants in islands of habitat and, as a result,human-elephant conflict is escalating. Twenty-ninepercent of the island’s forest was lost between theyears 1985 and 1997. This has accelerated since thefall of the Suharto regime in 1998, and thesubsequent decentralisation of power, and it ispredicted that Sumatra will lose all of its super-diverse lowland forest by 2005 if current trendscontinue5.

Vietnam has gone one stage further. As one residentexplained ‘national policy is very much aimed atmoving large numbers of people into formerlyuneconomic areas and converting it toagriculture’6. As a result, Vietnam experienced anenormous decline in elephant populations from anestimated 1,500-2,000 in 1990 to 85-114 today7.The remaining elephants are dispersed in isolated,small populations with none larger than 16elephants. Studies of the resulting human-elephantconflict show clearly that its incidence and severityare strongly related to the extent of habitatdestruction8.

By contrast to the situations in the above countries,there are large blocks of habitat in Cambodia andPDR Lao but few elephants due to uncontrolledpoaching. Conflict is beginning to surface in PDRLao but there are serious efforts to stop shiftingcultivation and thus the potential for conflict andhabitat damage9. Cambodia, by contrast, facesextensive logging and plantation development inthe future10.

Myanmar also contains large blocks of remainingforest, having retained about half of its forestcover, although little is known for sure about thesituation there11. Elephant numbers are thought tobe declining in parts of the range and are less thanoriginally supposed in the mid 1990s12. Howeverthe extent of remaining forest means that healthypopulations possibly still remain. Elephants hereare undoubtedly under threat from poaching andaccelerating deforestation as the regime looks forrevenue to combat the effects of economicsanctions13.


3 Interview 3, India, 27 December 20024 Interview 14, India, 16 December 2002

5 Holmes, D (2002) The Predicted Extinction of Lowland Forests in Indonesia. In Terrestrial Ecoregions of the Indo-Pacific (Wikramanayake et al.). Island Press, Washington DC, USA.

6 Interview 58, Cambodia, 17 February 20037 Baker, I & Kashio, M (2002) Giants on Our Hands. FAO,

Bangkok.8 Ibid.9 Lao is also developing extensive hydropower schemes.10 Interview 3, India, 27 December 200211 Interview 69, UK, 21 November 200212 In 1995 the state-run Myanmar Timber Enterprise was

unable to find elephants for capture.13 Interview 66, UK, 4 February 2003.

The situation in Malaysia and Thailand issomewhat intermediate. In Peninsular Malaysia,forest conversion (chiefly to plantations) started inthe south and west and is moving progressivelynorth and eastward. As a consequence, these areaslost the last of their elephants in 1991. Even in theTaman Negara National Park, the forest isfragmented through ad hoc plantation developmentwith no deliberate maintenance of elephantcorridors or consideration of elephants in theallocation of land to plantation agriculture.

In Sabah, a large contiguous block of forest habitatremains, conflict is localised and relatively low,and it is thought that elephant numbers are stable aslong as large- scale plantation development doesnot occur. However this currently remains a veryreal threat.

Thailand’s 2,250 wild elephants are found in 8forest complexes, however all are islands exceptthe Tenasserim complex in the west that continuesover the border into Myanmar. Rapid plantationdevelopment often means that elephants are pushedinto village areas where, unlike plantationcompanies, the people cannot afford mitigationmeasures such as electric fences.

Elephants in China occur only in the extreme SWcorner of Yunnan province. It should be noted thatthe data used in this section covered Yunnanprovince only, while data in the country scorecardrelates to the whole of China. There is acombination of forces operating in this area. Whileland is being converted to agriculture toaccommodate increasing populations, there is alsoa national reforestation programme, and it is alsothought that elephants are moving into Yunnanfrom Lao in response to increased habitatdestruction there, although this is yet to be proved.

The political dimension ofelephant population declines

War & civil strifeElephants have been a casualty of the wars andoppressive regimes that have characterisedIndochina since 1939. Elephants were a militarytarget because they were used by local armies todrag guns and supplies over the difficult forestterrain. Because wild elephants can be caught andtrained quickly, it is reported that Japanese andBritish pilots in WWII were ordered to shoot anywild elephants they chanced upon, as wereAmerican helicopter pilots in Vietnam14. Elephants

provided meat for military bush kitchens. The saleof ivory, elephant meat and timber pulled out byelephants helped finance local army commands.Organised poaching syndicates which emergedfrom these needs constitute the main threat to wildelephants in Indochina. Lao used to be called ‘landof a million elephants’; today there are about 2,500left.

One result of wars and insurgency movements isthat modern firearms pass into the rural population.Previously it was difficult and dangerous to try tokill an elephant with an old single-shot WWII rifle.With a modern semi-automatic AK47 an elephantcan be peppered with shots and killed as a result ofmultiple wounds in 15-20 minutes. The capacity ofthe weapon, their easy availability and the marketfor ivory, meat and other elephant parts (andwildlife in general) makes hunting a viable part-time or full time occupation for pioneer farmers.

Elephant poaching is a serious problem in parts ofIndia and Indochina. In Lao and Cambodia onlysmaller, remnant populations of elephants remain.Ironically, decades of war and actions of thegenocidal Pol Pot regime curtailed humansettlement of forests, leaving elephant habitat inrelatively good condition.

Politically driven settlement ofelephant habitat

The real problem for elephants in countries outsideIndochina is the expansion of agriculture intoelephant’s forest habitat. Forest-loss in Asia isoften portrayed as an inevitable consequence of theforces of population growth and poverty, which,despite the best efforts of government, still remainoutside social control.

Agricultural development and infrastructureprojects (e.g. dams) related to economicdevelopment necessitated clearing large areas ofelephant habitat in the last 50 years. However largeareas of habitat land are being settled incontravention of government land-use anddevelopment plans with the tacit support andencouragement of political, vested interests. Thereare four main forms of settlements:

• to displace and dilute dissident or minority peoples

• to lay claim to tribal territories • to create vote banks• to reward political patronage


14 Scigliano, E (2002) Love, War and Circuses: the age-oldrelationship between elephants and humans. Houghton Mifflin Company. New York.

Settlement to displace dissidentsSuch has been the level of deforestation in Thailandthat national boundaries are clear on satelliteimages and wild elephants are ‘pocketed’ inscattered forest patches. The power-base of theKingdom of Siam and the new nation of Thailandwas the wet rice cultivators of the Mekong riverbasin. During the Cold War, the communist threatwas linked with the fear that the marginalised tribalpeoples inhabiting forested regions would embracecommunist principles. Later, following the 1970military clamp-down, young intellectuals fledBangkok to find refuge in tribal villages. Anexpedient way to deal with this problem was todrive roads into forested regions and allow theurban poor to pioneer ‘new’ lands, often in thewake of army-owned logging concessions.

Settlement to claim territoryTribal leaders in Assam have recently encouragedyoung families to settle forest lands in an attempt tosecure territorial ownership claims in futurenegotiations on representation and the degree oftribal autonomy.

Settlement to capture vote banksMore insidious is the widening practice ofestablishing vote banks. The clearest example ofthis, also in Assam, where democracy, coupled withmultiple parties and diverse populations, meansthat power can rest on as little as 5,000 votes. InAssam, politicians ‘facilitate’ settlement of reserveforest lands by Bangladeshi immigrants. Suchcommunities tend to stick together and vote as ablock for their political patron. The spread ofdemocracy means that city-based governing elitesneed rural votes. In many south-east Asia countries,the patron is a trader/investor but the outcome is thesame. The traditional feudal system provides anestablished means of achieving this end. Allowinglocal ‘big men’ to build a loyal client base ofpioneer farmers, and then doing deals with theseindividuals, appears to be an expedient way ofsecuring votes.

Settlement to reward political patronageSince 1970, Sumatra’s forests have been opened upfor logging and estate and timber crop plantationsat an extraordinary rate. Plantation and loggingconcessions were a means by which the SuhartoNew Order regime (1967-1998) could rewardsupporters and punish opponents in the struggle tostabilise political power.

The reality is that land represents the capacity forpower especially when it has trees. Rather thansettling and cultivating abandoned or degradedland, forests are targeted for the simple reason thatthe timber covers the start-up investment and more.In many forests reserved for watershed andenvironmental protection, for nature conservationand the sustainable supply of timber and otherforest products, politicians and bureaucrats eitherbend the rules, ignore the rules, or re-write the rulesto suit their own interests. Crucially, as we will seelater in this report, they often undermine theinfluence of forest and wildlife departments toreduce resistance to their activity.

Table 2 has been included to serve as a reference,displaying a series of statistics chosen tocharacterise countries in terms of:

• elephant data (numbers of elephants remaining)• forest data (amount of forest remaining

-in relation to land area- and rate of loss)• political characteristics: the nature of the

government, level of freedom, civil liberties, and press freedom



Table 2: Diagnostic statistics on 10 Asian countries with wild elephant populations

Photo used in the public awareness campaigns programmes of the Sri Lankan Wildlife and NatureProtection Society.

Essential systems and institutionsfor elephant conservationElephant conservation requires a response at thelevel and scale of society because of the large spacerequirements of elephants and the complexity ofmanaging interactions between elephants andhumans. This means that government institutionshave ultimate responsibility for the fate of wildelephants. We identified four key sub-systems ofthe socio-cultural make up of a country that need tobe in place and functioning if elephant conservationis to succeed in the long term. These are 1) agenuine will on the part of politicians and thepublic to secure a future for elephants; 2) the legaland policy instruments to provide institutions andindividuals with the mandate to act; 3) resources —financial, knowledge, expertise — to finance,devise and guide these actions; and 4)implementation activities able to translate will,frameworks and resources into a meaningful andlasting effect on the ground.

Of the four socio-political sub-systems, we regard“will” as the most important element that underpinsall the others. “Will” covers both political will andpublic support. Public support provides thepressure and impetus for the expression of politicalwill, most notably in democratically electedgovernments. National political will can also beinfluenced by international pressure. Political willdrives the passing of laws and policy to protect andmanage elephant populations and their habitats. Itensures that financial resources are provided;sufficient knowledge, scientific and technicalexpertise is nurtured; laws and plans are enforced;and that implementation agencies (parksdepartments, judiciary and the police) areempowered and held accountable for delivery.

Effective implementation agencies follow closelybehind will because these are required to translatewill into action and ensure the desired results. A greatdeal could be achieved with strong will and goodimplementation, but the efficiency of implementationis greatly facilitated by a legal basis for activity, andplanning frameworks that direct the variousgovernment sectors that need to integrate elephantconservation with the needs of stakeholders. Thisis particularly the case in the real (as opposed to theabstract) world where will and implementation are

less than perfect. The same is true of knowledge,and financial and human resources, wherededicated money and the availability of therequired knowledge and expertise greatly enhancethe ability to direct the science, policy, andimplementation of conservation activity.

Comparative assessment of acountry’s capacity to conserveelephantsWe considered 10 of the 13 Asian countries thathave wild elephant populations, due to constraintsof time and money. The three not covered wereNepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh. These countrieswere excluded on the grounds that they had lownumbers of elephants; most of their elephants weretransmigrants and their resident herds were verysmall and isolated or non-existent; and there wereno current NGO projects concerned with theirconservation (the primary focus of this study).

Country scorecard assessment systemIn order to assess a country’s capacity to conserveelephants, we chose a suite of indicators thatcaptured the degree to which the elements requiredfor successful elephant conservation were presentand functioning. This involved considering boththe entities (such as institutions, people,frameworks), the nature of the relationshipsbetween them, and the processes involved in theirfunctioning. We grouped these under four headings(see Box 1, page 5) that corresponded with the sub-systems identified above:

1. Will.2. Frameworks.3. Resources. 4. Implementation.

WillWhen considering the will or support for elephantconservation, two major subdivisions appeared tobe appropriate:

1. Government vs public. Governments determine priorities for the country, construct frameworks and


Section III: Countries’ capacity to conserve wildelephant populations

implementation agencies, and allocateresources accordingly, but these can only reallybe effective if there is support from the public,and public concern can motivate and supportgovernments to provide for elephant conservation.

2. National/urban vs local/rural.The attitudes of populations living in immediateproximity to elephants are likely to be differentfrom those living elsewhere, and yet the supportof these people is crucial to the success of elephant conservation efforts on the ground.

Combinations of these two divisions lead to fourcategories of will:

i. national political willii. urban support (generally the urban middle

class)iii. local political will iv. rural support

Indicators capturing the degree of national politicalwill included aspects such as the existence ofchampions for elephants among the politicalleadership and whether elephants were related tonational identity. It also included the level ofengagement of civil society in elephantconservation, and its wider influence.

Assessment of the engagement of the urban middleclass included factors such as whether there was acultural empathy with elephants, the level ofknowledge, and whether this group were active inelephant conservation. It also included mediacoverage: whether elephants were deemednewsworthy and how they were portrayed.

Local political will captured the degree to whichpolitical interests at a local level were supportiveand sympathetic towards elephants. Rural supportincluded an assessment of attitudes — compassion,tolerance, crop-raiding — as well as basicknowledge, and whether government institutionswere perceived to be responsive.

FrameworksUnder frameworks, we included the legal and policyinstruments used by governments that are relevant toelephant conservation. Legal instruments includeboth the existence and the quality of legislationrelated to the conservation of elephants and theirhabitats, as well as the ratification of keyinternational conservation conventions. This alsoincludes laws relating to the existence of civil societyorganisations and the ability of citizens to call thegovernment to account through the legal system.Policy instruments assess the degree to which elephant

conservation is supported by National Plans andStrategies.

ResourcesThis sub-system assessed the availability ofresources that can be accessed by the country tosupport elephant conservation. (The degree towhich these resources were effectively used iscovered in the other sub-systems.) It covers threegeneral areas: financial; scientific and technical;and the availability of expertise. Financialresources include both governmental and non-governmental sources. Scientific and technicalknowledge assesses the degree to which thecountry supports on-going research related toelephant conservation, and whether there is up-to-date information available on elephant numbers,distribution, demography and ecology, as well asconflict mitigation, translocation, public attitudesand the socio-economic context. The final areameasures the availability of expertise in the subjectareas required for elephant conservation. Inaddition to the aforementioned, these includeplanners and policy workers, cultural promotersand fund-raisers.

Implementation agenciesWildlife and protected-area departments cannotconserve elephants without the active support andassistance of other departments. At the very least,the planning department or authority needs todesignate reserves and corridors of sufficient sizeand appropriate configuration; the police need tocombat poaching syndicates and evict illegalsettlers, and the judiciary must provide court timeto hear cases and apply adequate deterrents. Theimplementation agencies responsible for deliveringelephant conservation on the ground were thereforegrouped into four main areas: the Parks andWildlife Department; enforcement bodies;planning authorities; and civil societyorganisations.

In assessing the Parks and Wildlife Departments wewere concerned to capture the organisational statusof the Department and the degree to which theywere empowered to carry out their responsibilitiesin terms of available budget and authority.Organisational culture was also important and thiscovered the nature of bureaucratic operations aswell as the level of inter-departmental and inter-agency co-ordination; the basis of decision making;and the amount of organisation learning fostered.The number and availability of well-trained staffwas also important. Finally we assessed the degreeto which operations were hindered through political


interference, rent-seeking and corruption, issuesthat can render all else ineffective.

The enforcement bodies included the judiciary andthe police, and we assessed the degree to whichthey were able to uphold the law; their capacity andmotivation to do so in terms of time, resources, andknowledge; and the evidence of successfulprosecutions and deterring sentences.

We also looked at the degree to which planningauthorities integrated elephant conservation, andthe level of empowerment of the local planningauthorities.

For civil society organisations we measured thelevel of activity within a country and its spread foreach of the major types of NGO (INGO, NNGO,LNGO) as well as assessing the degree to whichthese activities provided strategic support to localgovernment implementation agencies.

General themes arising fromthe analysisThe results of our assessment are presented inScorecard Tables 3 and 4 (pages 16 and 17). Thissection highlights five general themes arising fromthe analysis:1. The mismatch between laws and

implementation.2. The importance of cultural empathy.3. The role of the media.4. The status of science. 5. The need for a vision.

Laws compared to implementationcapacityThe most obvious general finding was thatimplementation capacity falls well behind laws andregulations. All countries surveyed have laws toprotect elephants and establish wildlife sanctuariesand all are signatories to key internationalconservation conventions. But the countries vary intheir ability to hold government to account, afactor that we deemed crucial in capturing the

efficacy of legal frameworks. Only India has agovernment-approved policy and action plan tofacilitate implementation of these laws, and of allthe countries surveyed, only India was able toprovide an estimate of the amount of moneyrequired.

Elsewhere, wildlife departments have preparedtheir own action plans (e.g. Vietnam, China, Sabah)or are in the process of preparing one (Sri Lanka)but mostly governments have simply contributed toan Asia-wide elephant plan prepared by the IUCN’s(World Conservation Union) Asian ElephantSpecialist Group in 1992. The AESG comprises agroup of committed elephant conservationists andwas founded in 1978, to ‘provide politicians withattractive alternatives, supported by quantifiabledata and, where appropriate, strengthened bytested practical solutions which they can usewithout seriously compromising national plans foreconomic development’. Their 1992 documentrepresents overall elephant policy to guidegovernment action.

Table 3: Strength of four essential systems that together lead to elephant conservation comparedbetween 10 Asian countries

16

The dysfunctional implementation system: thebogging down of political willOf the countries considered, India has the bestoverall capacity, but was still only rated fair. Thisis because although it has excellent laws, policies,and resources; many enlightened individuals; asupportive judiciary at the higher levels which iseffective in bringing the government to account;and a non-corrupt army, it is severely hampered bythe implementation process. The political will isthere but seems to get tied up and bogged down. Asone seasoned senior executive and citizen’s groupcampaigner put it ‘things fall flat at theimplementation stage due to the dysfunctionality ofthe system’1. This dysfunctionality emasculates theefforts of the many excellent, committedindividuals present at all levels within the systemwho have to find ways to operate around it.

The reasons are complex, but the significant factorsare articulated in the following sections. These will

vary in importance from place to place andcombine in mutually reinforcing ways according tolocal circumstances.

At first sight, this dysfunctionality may appear tobe due to the fact that while laws and plans areproduced at the national level, responsibility forimplementation lies at the level of the State, whosefinance ministries habitually use the funds to bridgeshortfalls in essential expenditure and they are onlyreleased to the wildlife department at the end of theyear. However, as one senior NGO policy workerexplained: ‘The government doesn’t give (theStates) enough money and they misuse it ... TheState governments don’t have much concept ofplanning and adhering to the plan. They use theexcuse that the money has run out and has to beused somewhere else... There’s rampant misuse offunds and it is all official’.2

While funding can be a problem, the real issue liesin not knowing exactly what to do with the


Table 4: Strength of sub-systems of the four essential systems that together lead to elephantconservation, compared between 10 Asian countries

2 Interview 110, India, 11 March 20031 Interview 85, India, 14 December 2002

resources available: how to think strategically, planand prioritise activities. Much of the problem canbe attributed to the lack of a clear policy vision forthe Indian government’s Project Elephant3. There isno concrete guidance about, for example, what theStates need to do with their elephants, especiallyproblem elephants. The result is that much of whatdoes get done is ad hoc and reactive, amounting toexpensive crisis management with no enduringimpact. A simple example is paying compensationfor crop damage instead of implementing strategiesto reduce the incidence of conflict in the first place.

In many areas (especially north-east and centralIndia) the implementation process has beenhijacked by the political interests of this ‘noisydemocracy’. The following quotes capture localsentiment ‘local politicians are the biggest threat toelephants …. (because) …. national politiciansgain support from local politicians, and localpoliticians gain their power base from giving outland’.4 This often means that ‘the middlemanagement … don’t want to be active for fear ofupsetting groups of voters/influential people whowill then pressure politicians which might lead tothe officer being relocated’. It makes it verydifficult for committed individuals to act.‘Throughout the government, the culture is suchthat no one will take a decision that may becontroversial. They would rather stall the decisionthan stick their neck out, and so there is pressure topaint the picture that everything is OK because ifsomething is wrong, then they are expected to dosomething, and they risk being confronted withcontroversial decisions. This happens most of thetime because they are scared of their superiors andof the wrath of politicians, who might not like theirdecision, and override it. The officer then losesface, credibility and is transferred. Any officer thatis the thorn in the flesh of politicians (and theofficers in their thrall) will be moved out.’ 5

It is possible, however, to exaggerate the role oflocal politicians. In south India it appeared thatthey were much less of a driving force and thatinternal corruption was the key problem. Over-emphasizing the role of politicians could merely beexcuses for the poor performance of the wildlifedepartment, be it due to internal corruption; lack ofknowledge and strategy; apathy and a lack of willand commitment; or any combination of these.

The fundamental significance of will andcommitment is manifest in cases such as NagerholeNational Park in South India and Kaziranga innorth-east India. Here, local staff fought offpoaching pressures with the same resources thatwere available to others. Such success tends toattract the attention of NGOs and governmentsupport, giving the appearance of better funding,but the initial success was due to individual officerswho motivated their staff. Another example is thatof a committed District Forest Officer, and hisexemplary work with the resettlement of tribalpeoples out of the Bhadra Tiger Reserve. In thiscase, he recognised the people’s plight, he wassensitive to the needs of people and wildlife, and hemotivated the other departments to do their job insupporting the effort.

The plight of the field staffThe dysfunctional nature of many governmentagencies means that responsibility for decisions,action or accountability to the public is delegated tothe least empowered levels of the departmentconcerned. In the words of one ranger, ‘the upperlevel shifts responsibility to the lowest level and thelowest level has no resources’.6 The result is thatmany of the forest staff are demoralised. Manyhave pride in their work and feel a moral duty toprotect the forest, but they are in an impossibleposition. One forest guard spoke of feeling bad thathe had not been able to protect the forests, and thatfive levels of hierarchy put responsibility on theguards for failing in forest management, but at theoperational level they have to balance so manycompeting interests including the well-being oftheir family. Another group of guards spoke of theirlow status and the day-to-day problems of trying todo their job. ‘If we apprehend a poacher, a group ofvillagers beat us up. The police should back us up butthey don’t because they are paid off by locals.’ 7Asone NGO director put it, ‘there is enough will in thenew generation of forest people – very sincere andwant to make a difference but do not have theresources nor the backup.’ 8

Low ratings in Lao and Cambodia reflect recentpolitical histories when totalitarian and genocidalregimes destroyed institutions and the professionalclasses. As a result, government agencies areweak and lacking in capacity. One NGO worker in


3 Interview 3, India, 27 December 20024 Interview 2, India, 18 February 20035 Interview 2, India, 18 February 2003

6 Interview 127, India, 10 December 20027 Interview 47, India, 12 December 20028 Interview 112, India, 16 December 2002

Cambodia described the effect as follows: ‘In muchof rural Cambodia the ability to achieve anything isnot defined just by a single government agency. Itis based upon a people’s committee. It is usuallyinfluenced by a number of different factors: themilitary, the provincial governor, proximity tointernational borders and then power. We use thephrase ‘big bananas’: people who wield power.Sometimes it’s politicians, sometimes it isn’t. Theselocal political climates need to be understood farbetter than the agencies from Phonm Penh.’ 9 Thelack of government presence makes Cambodia arelatively easy country for INGOs, who have fewerconstraints on their operations.

In Indonesia, the weak performance reflects thecorrupt systems inherited from the 35-year oldSuharto regime, and the anarchy and chaos thatfollowed its collapse in 1998. Post-1998decentralisation policy enabled these systems toflourish at more local levels, beyond the control ofcentral government. The enforcement agenciescontinue to be involved in poaching and the illegaltimber trade, and the authority of the Parks andWildlife staff at the district level has beensubstantially undermined. Consequently, they arepowerless to counter the networks of localexploitation interests, and are demoralised by thefutility of their task. Indonesia does, however, havea dynamic civil society; while Sumatra’s rapidlydisappearing super-diverse forests have attractedthe inputs and expertise of many of the INGOs.

More generally, inter-ministry and departmentalco-operation is limited throughout Asia. The workof the conservation department can be greatlyundermined when other departments act withouttaking the elephant into consideration at the outset.Marginal changes in plan can often be verybeneficial to elephants at little or no extra cost.Unfortunately, wildlife and protected areadepartments are among the lowest statusgovernment departments in Asia and tend to havelittle influence with these other branches ofgovernment. In India, Sri Lanka and Thailand,where governing and business elites have a longtradition of interest in wildlife, these departmentshave a slightly higher profile.

Where there are conditions imposed to bring aboutan integrated approach (e.g. mandatoryEnvironmental Impact Assessment for projects in

forest areas), the process is often superficiallyexecuted by non-specialists, effectively renderingthe process invalid.10

Cultural empathy with elephants and willThe second general point arising from ourassessment is that countries with cultural empathyfor elephants generally fare best. This esteem canbe traced historically to their domestication in theold kingdoms and the harnessing of their power toconstruct palaces and cities, engage in elite sportsand embody military might. The possession of alarge elephant stable became the most importantsymbol of royalty and independent power in Asiaand, as one source states, ‘where there areelephants there is victory’. Their use continued intothe colonial era, notably in forestry andconstruction, but it is only in Myanmar thatelephants are still central to the economy. Here, aforce of 5,400 elephants is employed in its loggingindustry where they cause much less damage thanmachinery and are cheaper to maintain.


Elephants are strongly manifest in the religioustraditions of Hinduism in India; and Buddhism inSri Lanka, Thailand, Myanmar, Laos andCambodia. Their laws of non-violence and theirteaching of reincarnation embody a profoundrespect for nature. India’s good performance inelephant conservation, for example, has relied onthe tolerance of its people and the regard they holdfor elephants as the embodiment of ‘Ganesh’ theelephant-headed god, the Lord of Beginnings, the

Relief from the Royal Palace in Cambodia. Elephants helpedcreate perceptions of the divine power of many rulers of the oldkingdoms of Asia. Photo: Paul Jepson

9 Interview 58, Cambodia, 17 February 2002 10 Interview 3, India, 27 December 2002

God of Protection and the Remover of Obstacles.He is the most popular of the Indian deities, anddevotees flock to temples to receive his blessings.India’s Project Elephant document states that‘Elephants have always been so much a part ofIndia’s myths, history, and cultural heritage thatprotecting and ensuring the survival of this animalmeans much more to an Indian than protecting justanother endangered species’.

Elephants figure strongly in the legends of boththese religions. In a previous life, the Buddha issaid to have been incarnated as a six-tusked whiteelephant, endowed with miraculous powers and anability to fly, and a white (or albino) elephant isassociated with Buddha’s birth. Buddha’s mother issaid to have dreamed that a white elephant enteredher side. Wise men told her that it was a sign thatshe would give birth to a great man. EricScigliano11 observed of Sri Lanka that ‘nowheresave Thailand are elephants so widely splashed –across ads, signs, temples and ballots.

Cultural empathy appears to be latent in Cambodiaand Laos, probably owing to the political upheavalsof the past decades. Laos used to be called ‘Theland of the million elephants’, and white elephantswere associated with royalty. Today, even thoughthere is no king, the State still maintains a whiteelephant stable for processions. In Cambodia, onegovernment official affirmed that cultural empathywas still present and expressed pride in the elephantcarvings at Ankor Wat.

Countries where the cultural importance ofelephants has disappeared, such as Malaysia andIndonesia, don’t show the same empathy forelephants. However, in Sumatra, we found thateven in rural areas suffering from conflict causedby rapid deforestation, rural people still felt thatelephants had a right to exist (see Box 6, page 21).The same survey also highlighted the lack ofknowledge of the global importance of remainingAsian elephant populations. A common sentimentof people throughout Asia living close to elephantswas eloquently expressed by settlers in Assam as‘where there is forest there are elephants. Europehas forest …elephants must be there …. but not inAmerica because it is all cities’.12

The Secretary of the Asian Elephant SpecialistGroup stated in its Action Plan: ‘The best laid plansfor conservation in general will come to nothing ifthere is no political will to implement them’.National political will was evident, particularly inIndia, Sri Lanka and Thailand, but in all thesecountries it was caught up in the implementationprocess. Urban middle classes in democracies areinfluential in terms of mobilizing support andmobilizing politicians, and these three countriesscored the highest on this measure. Local politicalwill is influenced by the power of local exploitationinterests to pressure political and governmentprocesses. In Indonesia, for example, despitedeclarations at the national level asserting theintention to control illegal logging, there is littlepolitical will or organised concern at the local levelto do so.

We found rural support depended on the level ofhuman-elephant conflict and the extent of culturalempathy. Young women in the fields of Assamexpressed the strong sentiment that ‘we have livedin a land of elephants and we won’t live in a landwithout elephants’.13

However, the prevailing view in India was thathuman-elephant conflict had become anincreasingly important issue over the last fiveyears. According to one NGO director, ‘I thinkhuman-elephant conflict is becoming a huge issue– much bigger than it is now. People like elephants….but land is everything now.’14 One veteranconservationist explained that ‘previously ruralpeople thought elephants were part of theenvironment: they found ways to live with it.Increasingly their attitude is that elephants belongto the forest department and they hold thegovernment responsible for crop-raiding.’ 15 Onesenior official attributed this to government policyand that ‘people’s attitudes changed once thegovernment started offering compensation’.16


11 Eric Scigliano (2002, ‘Love, War and Ciruses’Houghton Mifflin.

12 Interview, 133, India, 12 December 2002

13 Interview, 133, India, 12 December 200214 Interview, 14, India, 16 December 200215 Interview, 127, India, 10 December 200216 Interview, 48, India, 18 December 2002

The support of people living close to protectedareas is important for enforcing conservationactivities. One Sri Lankan described the hazards:‘people in human-elephant conflict areas havedeep-seated animosity towards the wildlifedepartment as a result of their strict protection inthe past, which kept the wildlife in and safe andkept people out. Then they see the Pajero17 -set fromColombo coming down and frolicking, and gettingdrunk in the parks. They just see the parks asplaygrounds for the rich and elite and we haveto suffer the consequences. This approach -

attitude - has done a lot of damage to the wildlifeconservation cause. I think the wildlife departmentis realising this mistake and starting to introducemore participatory approaches’ 18.

The role of the mediaA free media is crucial to recognise the problemand to generate concern and will among all sectors.Newspapers are of critical importance among theurban middle classes and for political will. As oneIndian NGO activist put it, ‘with law-makers fastbecoming law-breakers, I believe that the two other


Remarkably little has been done to understandpublic attitudes to elephants and their conservationin Asia. Governments and NGOs alike assumesupport for their policies. In 2002 we conductedtwo surveys in Indonesia. The first investigatedattitudes in the Sumatran province of Aceh whereconflict between elephants and farmers isincreasing. The second surveyed households inIndonesia’s five largest cities.

The results of these surveys indicate that elephantsare popular. The majority of rural and urban peoplesurveyed answered that Indonesian culture wouldbe diminished if elephants died out, that elephantshave a right to live and that the government shouldset aside land as elephant sanctuaries. However,when asked to balance elephant conservationagainst forest exploitation attitudes were lessfavourable. When asked to choose between forestconservation and plantation development, 3 out of5 respondents in Aceh chose plantations, and onlya third of households in the cities felt that spendingmoney on elephants was worthwhile.

These ambivalent attitudes may be a consequenceof low knowledge levels concerning the status ofwild elephants. When asked whether wildelephants occurred in Europe, 15% of respondentsthought they did and 69% didn’t know. A quarter ofrespondents in the cities thought there were stillwild elephants on Java – Indonesia’s most populousisland – where they have been extinct for 400 years.

Note: The Aceh survey was an activity of the FFI CELA project andsurveyed 1040 people in six sites. We thank ACNielsen Jakarta for kindlyincorporating the city survey with their regular Omnibus household survey

11 A smart 4W drive car 18 Interview 97, Sri Lanka, 9 January 2003

Box 6 Do people in Asia want to conserve elephants?

Agree

82%

98%

1%

62%

35%

3%

15%

58%

41%

16%

69%

1%

16%

2%

Disagree Don’t know

Agree Disagree Don’t know



Indonesian culturewill be diminished ifelephants die out

The governmentshould designateand manage elephantsantuaries

Aceh: (see note)

Five major cities:

Spending money soelephants can live freeis worthwhile

Elephants have a rightto live and we mustleave space for them

We should only leavespace for elephnats if itbrings us economicbenefit

Do wild elephants occurin Europe?

pillars of our democracy must be activated, namely the free press and the judiciary...Without asupportive and sensitive press, we would benowhere’.19

We also found evidence of the importance oftelevision in generating knowledge among thewider population in countries where empathy washigh, yet in Malaysia, one resident expressed theview that ‘the television shows development as thesource of happiness …. the government has put inthe minds of people that nature is chaos, dirty andunhygienic, while concrete and straight lines aregood ... and so elephants are seen as pests’.20

On the whole, elephant stories are popular,however the role of the media and their portrayal ofelephants gives cause for concern. There is a movefrom their portrayal as creatures of respect and aweto ones of pity, or fear. In many areas, ruralvillagers expressed pity for the animals havingnowhere to go or food to eat. In Thailand the veryvisible situation of unemployed elephants beggingon the streets also induces pity. One governmentscientist expressed the view that ‘there is massivepublic ignorance and it’s partly confused by thefact of domestic elephants. I don’t think Thai peopleknow much about elephants in the wild. They don’tsee the value of wild animals. Their mainmotivation is pity for the elephants’.21

One veteran conservationist in Sri Lanka expressedthe opinion that ‘over the last 10 years peopleincreasingly feel that the elephant is something tobe feared… I think it’s wrong. The media reallydoes not understand that they are giving thisimpression. What makes news is a human dead oran elephant dead. When a human is trampled theyuse the word ‘beast’. This is so unfortunate becausefor so long we never thought of it as a beast and yetsuddenly the term beast is being used’.22

Status of science and knowledgeIndia and Sri Lanka were the only countriesinvesting in science and retaining good intellectualtraditions in elephant conservation, withgovernment research institutes and a dynamiccommunity of expertise. This reflects a strongscientific tradition within these cultures. There is,however, no system that allows the interaction

between managers and researchers on a systematicbasis that could enable on-going research-assistedplanning at the State level.

This is in contrast to many of the other countrieswhere either science is not regarded as a highpriority, or scientists are regarded as a threat. InLao, for example, the country ‘never hadintellectuals. The French didn’t set up a universityand they never had a joint research programmewith the Russians. There is no intellectualtradition. Some Lao people have been trainedabroad and came back with degrees that they trulyearned. But when they came back they couldn’t doanything. You get the idea that the government seestrained people as a threat and keeps them down’.23

Similarly in Myanmar, where the ministers arefrom the military and ‘many do not know how todeal with intellectuals: they are neglected, notconsulted, marginalised and isolated from everyday affairs. At the same time they are not allowedto go outside the country’.24

In Sumatra, the high level of INGO interest in itssuper-diverse forests has led to significantinvestment in science by these organisations, inparticular the Wildlife Conservation Society ofNew York (WCS).

The need for a visionThere is a need to recognise that growingpopulations, increasing development, andincreasing conflict are already eroding the culturalempathy that has allowed the persistence ofelephant populations. Governments must recognisethe situation and implement strategies to deal withthe problem.

The need for effective government authority andimplementation has already been discussed.Internal corruption and lack of direction stifle willand encourage apathy, while apathy feeds back toallow corrupt practice. Factors such as resourcesand backup, enhancing status and rewardingperformance all help boost morale and will, but ontop of this there needs to be a national visionfor elephant conservation that guides strategicplanning, and focuses effort.

An uncomfortable truth, however, is that ignoringthe elephant issue may suit governments. On the


19 Interview, 16, India, 14 February 200220 Interview, 51, Malaysia, 6 April 200321 Interview, 75, Thailand, 3 February 200322 Interview, 53, Sri Lanka, 30 December 2002

23 Interview, 136, Cambodia, 16 February 200324 Interview, 66, Sri Lanka, 4 February 2003

one hand, managing a reduction of elephantpopulations in line with agricultural expansionwould require culling or capture. The formerwould cause a public outcry and the latter hasenormous recurrent costs. On the other hand,protecting national forest estates and clampingdown on poaching syndicates means ending thecorrupt land and trading deals of local politicians,army commanders and bureaucrats, and risksexposing the true limits of state power.

To the non-Asian, the pragmatic approach might beto decide how much space to allot to elephants,translocate displaced elephants to these areas untiltheir carrying capacity has been met and then cullthe rest. Malaysia has gone furthest down this roadbut stopped short of culling. For most Asiansocieties, it is inconceivable to sanction the officialkilling of elephants.25 It seems that faced with thedifficult challenge of balancing the needs ofelephants and cultural identity against theeconomic and political gain accrued from forestconversion, governments and perhaps society atlarge prefers to fudge the issue. This leavesresponsibility for dealing with marauding elephantsin the hands of poor settler farmers. Desperatefarmers, fearing for their crops, property andfamily, but also of the consequences of takingdirect action against a protected species, arediscreetly poisoning elephants or paying corruptpolice officers to shoot them. Over time, theelephants and the problem fade away.

As one elephant expert put it, ‘plans are uselesswithout a policy vision as you don’t know what theplans are trying to achieve. Currently all the plansays is ‘let’s conserve elephants and put an end tohuman-elephant conflict’. But we need to look atthe long term: what are the future trends, people’saspirations, future problems? Then we can seewhat could be effectively conserved in the longterm. For example, a forest patch is degraded andthe elephants are coming out into agriculturallands. What is our policy on this? Do we want toconserve them and reinstate forest…. Under whatcircumstances? If there is a clear policy we can acton it, do the education, target the funds etc.…’.26

Without a clear vision, government action is adhoc. In India, which is furthest along the route inthat it has a national elephant project withdedicated funds, ‘District Forest Officers apply forfunds to the state, which then applies to the centralgovernment, but there is no mechanism foridentifying priorities within the overall vision’.27

As a result, there is a tendency to wait for a crisisto happen and use money in expensive mitigatingactivities such as compensation for crop raiding,and the filling of water-holes, and expensive trenchconstruction, which could have been avoided ormitigated for less cost if a plan had been devisedand followed.

In Sri Lanka the government found it had a majorelephant problem on its hands in the 1970s when itinitiated a massive irrigation scheme under theMegahwali development project in prime elephanthabitat. In response, the government designatedadditional wildlife sanctuaries and attempted thedifficult task of driving displaced elephants intothese. Initially it looked like the Indonesiangovernment might follow suit. When a newtransmigration site was overrun by elephants in the1980s, the government designated a new wildlifesanctuary, and in a nine-month long operation triedto drive more than 200 elephants to this area.Shortly after, Indonesia switched its policy tocatching problem elephants and putting them incentres where they would be trained for productiveuse in logging or tourism. This seemed like a win-win solution: no need to designate additionalreserves or mount difficult driving operations andan opportunity to harness elephants as a contributorto national development. Unfortunately, Indonesiawas already in the mechanised age, and had lost itstraditions of working elephants. Compared to atruck or bulldozer, elephants are inconvenient to‘run’. Demand for working elephants wasnegligible and elephants now languish in therenamed conservation centres in appalling conditions.

It could be said that Peninsular Malaysia has a clearvision for elephants and an implementationstrategy. As forest is cleared and conflict arises,there is a system for evaluating the severity of theconflict and the most appropriate mitigationstrategies. Where all else fails, a government unittranslocates elephants to one of four designatedrelease sites. The strategy has been criticised byconservationists on the grounds that, in reality,translocation tends to be the first option rather than


25 There is, however, another viewpoint that maintains thatthe public would find culling acceptable if presented as part of a rational strategy to manage elephants based ona scientific assessment; and that the concept that cullingis not acceptable has been largely the creation of NGOsand fearful governments.

26 Interview 3, India, 27 December 2002 27 Interview 3, India, 27 December 2002

the last. In addition, no one knows the fate of thetranslocated elephants and whether they survive(data from Myanmar indicates that translocatedelephants only live seven years on average aftertranslocation); whether they are poached; orwhether they move to crop raid elsewhere as aresult of disturbance from illegal loggers. It is also

not known whether the release sites were alreadyat carrying capacity at the start of the translocationprogramme: the low level of poaching in theseareas suggests that they may have been. Overallaction appears to be taken only to remove theproblem from public view.


Tuskers like this are now rare in the wild because of ivory poaching.Photo: Paul Jepson

25

This section looks at how charities can make adifference and how they are currently organised,before assessing the results of the projectscorecard.

How NGOs can make adifference: their role in Asianelephant conservationElephant conservation is the primary responsibilityof government agencies because it is impossible forNGOs to control land or mobilise resources at thescale required. Nor can NGOs issue regulations,make arrests or institutionalise inter-agency action.NGOs therefore play a supporting role. ‘theproblem is when they try and replace governmentbecause they don’t have the mandate: it’s thegovernment that has the mandate’ were the wordsof one Indian wildlife official.1

Government officers we interviewed were cleareron the role of NGOs in conservation than were theNGO leaders. Several officials remarked on theimportant role of NGOs in pushing the governmentmachinery through standing up and telling things asthey are, because officials wanting to advance, oreven survive, in the bureaucracy must play by therules.

A second important role of NGOs is providing theinterface between the government machinery andthe people. Government officers we interviewed inIndia, Sri Lanka and Indonesia in particular talkedof how public distrust of government agenciesundermined public support and involvement intheir elephant management initiatives. They alsonoted that NGOs could work outside protectedareas where the jurisdiction of conservationauthorities is weaker.2

In the Simao Prefecture of China there wasenormous animosity between the villagers and theForest Bureau. Staff were often attacked byvillagers asking for compensation for elephantdepredations. IFAW’s (International Fund forAnimal Welfare) project aimed to set up a modelfor helping local government solve the human-elephant conflict here and encourage villagers toprotect elephants. Following two years of feasibility

studies and assessment of attitudes, a combinationof solutions has been implemented that includesmicro-credit loans for alternative farmingcombined with education in farming andmanagement techniques, and communityeducation. The project was well received by localpeople, local government and central government.As a result, China used the model to establish itsown National Plan for elephants. It also ensuredthat the Simao region extended its hunting ban (onall wildlife) for another five years.

NGOs were also seen to play an important role inover-coming shortfalls in technical capacity, whichis particularly acute in Cambodia, Lao andVietnam, and in supplementing operational budgetswhich are inadequate everywhere (except possiblyThailand and Malaysia). A comment from aninterviewee in Sri Lanka sums up the generalpicture ‘it seems that the state budget is allocatedin alphabetical order with W - wildlife at thebottom’.3 Equally serious are the annual delays of4-6 months between agreement of the state budgetand the dispersal of funds, which are commonplacein many countries. During these periods there maybe no money for routine activities such as patrols orcrop protection; salaries may be paid late andcontract staff laid off. NGOs can help limit theimpact of these funding gaps. However, there is acounter-argument that providing stopgap fundshelps perpetuate the problem by lessening demandsfor reform.

Conservation charities also have a role to play inhelping government agencies develop the will andcapacity to conserve and manage elephants :

1. By raising the profile and status of these agencies and their field staff in the public mind.

2. By lobbying for adequate resources for routine field operations.

3. By scrutinising the leadership to assure professional management.

4. By protecting field staff from intimidation frompolitical and other vested interests.

5. By supporting enforcement activities with field intelligence and prosecutions.

6. By providing links to wider networks ofbest practice.

Section IV: Conservation charities and Asian elephantconservation

1 Interview 85, India, 14 December 20022 Government conservation bodies generally have

responsibility for upholding wildlife law outside protectedareas, but activities relating to land use and livelihoods might be perceived as the responsibility of agricultural departments.

3 Interview 33, Sri Lanka, 8 January 2003

While no charities surveyed appear to besupporting in ways 1-3 above, we did find goodpractice in the last three. For example, in SriLanka, the Environmental Foundation Leagueprovides legal support to the wildlife department.They file cases against other departments or thegovernment if their activities are, for example,blocking elephant corridors.The EFL will also filecases against the police or army if either isobstructing a wildlife ranger in his duties. TheWildlife Protection Society of India has developeda country-wide network of investigators thatcollects information and assists and liaises withgovernment enforcement authorities to bring aboutthe arrest of offenders and the seizure of wildlifeproducts. It also has a cell of lawyers that supportsprosecutions, conducts training workshops andstudies and maintains a database on wildlifecrimes.

Government perceptions of conservationNGOsUnfortunately in many places we foundunconstructive antagonism between governmentsand NGOs. Negative perceptions of conservationNGOs were worst in India and Thailand and amonggovernment field staff. Many felt that NGOs tookthe credit for government work, or as oneexperienced wildlife official put it, NGOs ‘want tosteal the limelight’.4

Despite the chronic politicking and lack ofresources, India retains a cadre of committed andknowledgeable rangers. These people on the front-line often feel undermined by NGOs who are betterresourced and quick to publicise their successes,even when they rely on back-up from local forestryofficers and the local knowledge of rangers.

The director of a wildlife tour agency argued thatdemonstrating to rangers that people outsidegovernment value their role or care for their well-being will enhance motivation and jobperformance. Recognising this point, the WildlifeTrust of India runs a ‘Guardians of the Wild’project which has provided life insurance for forestguards and rangers in elephant ranges. It alsoprovides essential equipment supported by training.Unfortunately, several rangers we interviewedmentioned that while they were grateful for theequipment provided, they had not been consultedon what was needed, and felt it was more apublicity-seeking opportunity for WTI. As thewildlife tour operator advised, providing support‘discreetly without a big hullabaloo will generate

respect and appreciation among local actors’.5 Healso noted that the tourism sector could play animportant role because it would be relatively easyfor a wildlife tour guide to ask around about whatis needed and bring it along on his next trip.

In Thailand, where public pity for elephants createsa lucrative environment for donations, governmentfield officers perceive many NGOs as fly-by-nightswho are out to make a quick buck throughpublicising a crisis. As one retired wildlife officerput it ‘NGOs just come and disappear; blow theirtrumpets for a while and then go away. They useelephants to advertise their activities. I think theNGO people get more benefit than the elephant’.6


In Cambodia, where, until recently, the governmentlacked an established wildlife service of its ownand is without an active civil society, governmentperceptions of international NGO motivations aremore balanced but also worrying. Two quotes fromgovernment officials capture the sentiments:

‘They (INGOs) have positive and negativeimpacts. We are short of budget and human

Detailed local knowledge not always represented inGIS–generated planning and vision maps (produced byinternational NGOs) because of poor communication with forestdepartments. Photo: Paul Jepson

4 Interview 68, Sri Lanka, 8 January 2003

5 Interview 89, India, 10 December 20026 Interview 5, Thailand, 3 February 2003

resources and they bring that. But we give themmany facilities, like tax exemption and visas andsome of them seem to be just here for the highsalary and nice house.’7

‘NGOs say we want to help in your capacitybuilding but they send inexperienced young people.They come here to get experience but they want toteach us. Some are not even graduated. At thisstage we welcome them. We want to send ourpeople to graduate school, but the NGO and donorcommunity don’t support us with this.’8

Government and NGO partners alike are aware ofthe risks to credibility posed by the competitionwithin the NGO sector. An Indian NGO leadercommented that, ‘India has seen a fatigue of NGOsand nothing happening but internal politics’.9 AnNGO leader in Thailand thought lack of unityamong NGOs was a consequence of passion, ‘As sooften happens people who are passionate and havedrive and the will to start things up are also quitecombative. They get territorial and clash sooften’.10

These perceptions are hard to quantify but are realand widespread and constitute a major impedimentto the government-NGO partnership that isrequired to protect and manage wild elephantpopulations. Although building mutual trust andappreciation is a responsibility of both parties,NGOs should perhaps give much more credit togovernment agencies where it is due.

How conservation NGOs withelephant projects are organisingthemselves

The structure of the NGO communityThere are three broad groupings of NGOs:international, national and local.

1. International conservation NGOs (INGOs)mostly have their headquarters outside Asia andwork either through local partner NGOs or inpartnership with government conservationagencies. An example of the former is WWF whichworks through national WWF partners, many ofwhich are independent national NGOs. An exampleof the latter is The Wildlife ConservationSociety, which works under a technical assistanceagreement with national governments.

2. National NGOs employ a professional staff totake forward an agenda and manage projects at anational scale.

3. Local NGOs and citizens’ groups who work in aparticular local area and whose founders andtrustees are actively involved in the everydaydelivery of projects.

The blend of NGOs active in any one country orplace depends on the rules of the governmentconcerning civil society organisations and theavailability of grant aid. For example thegovernments of Lao, Cambodia and Vietnam do notpermit citizens to form NGOs but they do enter intoimplementation partnerships with INGOs,particularly if this brings funds and enables them toclaim that they are meeting their obligations as asignatory to international conventions. For INGOs,the advantage of such partnerships is accessto government policy development and inter-governmental conservation budgets. Thedisadvantage is that criticism of the governmentsystem or advocating agendas contrary to thegovernment line is often not permitted. Neither isgenerating a local supporter-base or fund-raisingwithin the country. This makes action forfundamental reforms difficult. As a result, INGOsin these situations tend to focus on less-controversial areas of activity such as planning,scientific research and training.

To overcome these problems, some INGOs haveestablished national programme offices as nationalNGOs or foundations. WWF has adopted thisapproach and its elephant projects are conductedthrough national WWF organisations in India andIndonesia with technical advisors from the main‘donor WWFs’ in the US, UK and Netherlands.Drawbacks to this approach are increasedmanagement costs and the emergence of closedshops i.e. a donor NGO in the west cannot directlyfund a local NGO outside their ‘family’ even if theyare better positioned to deliver what is needed.Support from INGOs within the same family canlead to complacency in the national projectsbecause they know that donor NGOs based in thewest need them as recipients of money foroperations.

Other INGOs form partnerships with national andlocal NGOs. One example is the Wildlife Trust inNew York which provides funding andscholarships for talented conservation biologistsattached to national NGOs. Another example is


7 Interview 123, Cambodia, 13 February 20038 Interview 19, Cambodia, 14 February 20039 Interview 134, India, 11 December 200210 Interview 18, UK, 18 October 2002

WildAid’s regional office in Bangkok, whichprovides national and local NGOs active in fightingwildlife crime with technical training and access totheir intelligence networks.

Asia-wide elephant conservationnetworksFour Asia-wide programmes or networks active inwild elephant conservation have emerged. Thedirect involvement of these programmes in Indiaand Sri Lanka is limited because these countriesalready have active national elephant conservationmovements.

The largest of these networks is WWF’s AsianRhino and Elephant Action Strategy (AREAS)launched in 1999. WWF’s strategy, which is easilyaccessible and authored by leading elephantconservationists, focuses on protecting elephants’habitat through large scale planning, policyinterventions and integrating elephant conservationinto broader WWF reserve- management andcapacity- building projects.

The oldest Asia-wide elephant programme isthe Cambridge (UK) based Fauna & FloraInternational. The FFI Asian ElephantConservation Programme is currently focused onsurveys of elephant distribution in Cambodia and aproject in Aceh, Sumatra, funded by a three-yearUS$750,000 grant from the Global EnvironmentFund (GEF).

The Wildlife Conservation Society of New York isdeveloping an Asia- wide elephant conservationprogramme. The main WCS focus is scientificresearch and training. It operates in many ways likea non-government research institute and developsresearch related to elephant conservation incountries where it has a programme office. WCShave a three-year old elephant project in Lampung,Sumatra. It is currently conducting preliminaryresearch for new projects in Lao and Cambodia andprovides technical advisors to the recently-launched inter-government project calledMonitoring of the Illegal Killings of Elephants(MIKE), mandated by the Convention onInternational Trade in Endangered Species(CITES).

A fourth network has a stronger elephant welfarefocus. The focus is wildlife trade, investigations,prosecutions, enforcement, media campaigns andrescue centres. Charities in this network tend to geton and do their own thing but swap knowledgeand team up at international conferences. Twointernational NGOs, The International Fundfor Animal Welfare and WildAid have elephant

projects, and the Wildlife Trust of India andWildlife Preservation Society of India are alsoprominent actors.

TRAFFIC, an NGO closely linked with WWF,which supports CITES implementation forms alink between this fourth network and WWFAREAs.

NGO partnerships with scientificinstitutionsINGO programmes and networks formpartnerships with scientific research institutions togain scientific guidance and credibility withdonors. The exception is WCS, which hassubstantial scientific capacity of its own. Researchinstitutes are outside the scope of this audit. Withinthe official establishment of conservation, theAsian Elephant Specialist Group (AESG) of theIUCN is expected to provide scientific leadershipand advice to IUCN members, which includegovernment and NGOs.

The current chair of the AESG is ProfessorSukumar, an internationally recognised expert onthe Asian elephant. He heads the Centre forEcological Sciences at the Indian Institute ofSciences in Bangalore. His group has a history ofelephant research. The Asian Elephant Research &Conservation Centre (AERCC), an NGO run byProfessor Sukumar, provides consultancy servicesto the FFI Asian Elephant Programme. ProfessorSukumar is a trustee and scientific advisor to theWildLife Trust of India and International Fund forElephant Welfare. The AERCC was tasked toprepare a bibliography of Asian elephant researchon behalf of the AESG. Although this has beencompiled, a copy was not forthcoming for thisaudit.

The Wildlife Institute of India has on-going Asianelephant research in north and central India and is akey scientific advisor to the government’s ProjectElephant. Sri Lanka has a vibrant community ofelephant scientists but no single research centre.Several young Sri Lankan elephant biologists arebased at universities throughout Sri Lanka and atColumbia University in New York.

The Smithsonian Institute in Washington has beenan influential force in Asian elephant conservationsince the 1970s. A series of research students haveundertaken studies in Sri Lanka, then Malaysia andnow Myanmar. The lead technical adviser to theWWF AREAs programme is an associate scientistat the Smithsonian, and they are forming ascientific partnership with Wild Aid’s elephantwork in Khao Yai National Park, Thailand.


Thematic areas of conservationactivityWe have discussed the role of NGOs in elephantconservation and how they are organised. Thissection surveys the main thematic areas of NGOelephant conservation activity and who is doingwhat activities where. NGOs frame their threeoverriding aims as 1) to protect habitat, 2) controlpoaching and 3) reduce human-elephant conflict.The principal means to these ends are:

• Strengthening knowledge of wild elephant numbers, distribution and movements as a basisfor reserve and corridor planning (see box 7, page 32) and monitoring.

• Employing international financial levers to slow forest conversion outside protected areas.

• Resettlement and forest restoration. • Strengthening enforcement through

prosecutions, under-cover work and the training, leading and equipping of ranger teams(see box 8, page 35).

• Piloting community-based means to control crop raiding (see box 9, page 36).

Table 5 shows our assessment of the activities ofNGOs and how these relate to the countryscorecard and the four focal areas that nations needto conserve elephants. The general picture wereveal is that most NGO effort is going into‘resources’ by increasing technical know-how onhow to manage elephants and supplementing thelimited capacity of implementation agencies. Lesseffort is going into building political and publicsupport.

This assessment may not be complete because largeINGOs, notably WWF, include elephantconservation activities as part of broader IntegratedConservation and Development Projects (ICDPs).WWF has moved away from single species projectsand instead organises activities under a conceptcalled ecoregion-based conservation. For example,in Cambodia, WWF has defined an area called theDry-forest ecoregion, on the basis of ecologicalfactors, and developed an integrated conservationstrategy for this area. It has conducted field wildlifesurveys and training and is developing rangerpatrols and alternative livelihoods. In the case ofICDPs, assessing whether general activities doindeed assist elephant conservation is a more time-consuming and complex undertaking and outsidethe scope of this report.

Counting and mapping wild elephantsAlthough this was once the domain of universitiesand government scientific institutions, conservation

charities such as WCS, FFI and to a lesser extentWWF, now place scientific surveys at the centre oftheir elephant conservation activities in thecountries of Indochina and SE Asia where scientificinstitutions and data are lacking. The NGObiologists we interviewed described the purpose ofscientific surveys as follows: • to ensure the conservation agencies and donors

base their strategies on accurate data and not ‘fabricated government data’

• to design reserve and corridor configuration • to enable monitoring and modification of

interventions • to arm government offices with facts enabling

them to pursue the wildlife agenda, and to counter simplistic analyses (such as the assertion that increasing human-elephant conflict is a result of increasing elephant populations)

The main techniques used are transects, camera-trapping, radio-tracking and analysis of satelliteimagery. These are time-consuming to implement,particularly because they require governmentcounterpart staff to be trained. Costs increase withthe level of accuracy required, yet the level ofaccuracy required is seldom discussed. Elephantpopulation figures are a case in point. The IndianForest Service has a long -established system forregular elephant counts which are compiled byProject Elephant. The elephant scientists and NGObiologists interviewed were quick to describe theirresults as ‘extremely unreliable’ and methods as ‘adhoc’ or ‘the next best thing to being made up in anoffice’ 11 as a south Indian researcher commented.To be fair, the block count system which wereviewed in Assam had a structured method andevidence of training to promote standardisation.However, because methods vary across India it isconsidered ‘unscientific’ to amalgamate counts thatare not comparable.

Despite the scientific limitations of the IndianForest service counts, the Director of ProjectElephant was able to state: ‘Just to give some ideaof where we stand, the latest figure is 28,000 wildelephants in 18 states occupying 110,000km2 of thecountry’ 12 and then go on to give a region by regionbreakdown. Basic figures, even those with a broadmargin of error, are needed to communicate thescale of the issues, urgency and strategy to decisionmakers. In no other country could we find someoneable to give similar basic figures.


11 Interview 82, India, 23 December 200212 Interview 105, India, 10 December 2002

30

Table 5: Assessment of focal activity areas of conservation NGOs with projects to conserve wild Asian elephants

The Wildlife Conservation Society’s project inLampung province of south Sumatra has produced‘the first statistically strong population estimates inAsia’,1 but no-one can quantify the decline in thewild population of Sumatran elephants at a timewhen forest conversion is out-of-control andconservationists urgently need to publicise theconsequences for wildlife.

The WCS population assessment provides animportant testing of techniques and bench marksagainst which to calibrate estimates elsewhere. Butfor reasons of cost and complexity it cannot beimplemented everywhere at this stage.

The risk is that the pursuit of accuracy consumesresources that could be more effectively spentelsewhere. For elephant conservation planningpurposes, accurate figures are not needed, except atthe local level where populations approach carryingcapacity. Relative orders of magnitude generallysuffice. As a Cambodian-based wildlife biologistput it, ‘in Indochina you wouldn’t have to knowabout numbers to be making some managerialdecisions. The situation is urgent. We need moreintelligent estimates to make some crudemanagement decisions and then build upon thoseand try to refine understanding from there’.2

More important than precise population figures arean understanding of population trends, distributionpatterns and movements, to identify broadpopulation trends and inform land-use planning andtargeting of enforcement resources. Only in India,Sri Lanka and Malaysia is the distribution of Asianelephants well known. In Sumatra, which isexperiencing large and rapid land change, elephantconservation planning is still informed by roughdistribution maps created in the mid-1980s. Thereis an urgent need too for new population anddistribution maps that are regularly up-dated.

Rough distribution maps can be compiled in amatter of months on the basis of interview surveys.An outstanding example of this approach wasconducted by the Cat Action Treasury inCambodia. Everyone wanted to know the status oftigers after 30 years of war. Costs, security andlogistics ruled out biological surveys so CATdecided to interview hunters who they felt wouldknow what was happening.

In 1998, CAT recruited five recent Cambodiagraduates who interviewed 150 hunters and 150

officials across Cambodia using a structuredinterview format, asking about tigers, elephants andother large mammals. When they compiled theresults they found the same three areas had mostimportant remnant populations of tiger, elephantsand wild cattle. The results of these surveys guidedthe large INGOs to focus their activities.Crucially, CAT reported back their findings to thehunters and invited them to become local wildliferangers. They recruited over 70 who nowcommunicate knowledge on the status of wildlifeand relevant laws to villages and send reportsback to CAT which are circulated in regularcommuniqués to conservation bodies.

Surveys designed by conservation biologists areinvariably framed as an integrated package ofsurvey and technical capacity building ultimatelyaimed at guiding routine monitoring andenforcement, but the last part often fails tomaterialise. WildAid’s Khao Yai ConservationProject recently submitted a proposal with verysimilar objectives to a project conducted in thesame park 17 years earlier, but with no analysis asto why the transition from survey to action failed inthe earlier case and why it should succeed this timeround.

In our view, surveys such as those used by CAThave much to contribute in estimating thepopulation and distribution of wild elephants, andtrends over time if repeated regularly. But their usehas so far been limited because of the view that‘perception’ data is unreliable and thereforeinvalid. In our view, embracing such approacheswhich have been used widely by developmentagencies for over 15 years, could significantlyimprove impact and efficiency by enabling a rapidassessment of the situation to guide conservationaction. It also has the added benefit of engaging thelocal community in the conservation vision.

Employing international financial leversThe WWF AREAS project in Tesso Nilo, Sumatra,is attempting to ‘stabilise the conversion frontier’through coercing pulp and paper companies to onlypurchase wood from legitimate sources. They dothis by applying pressure to the European bankswho hold their massive debts. This is a significantand exciting development for tropical forestconservation efforts generally, as it is attempting totackle the root causes of deforestation.


1 Interview 63, USA, 18 November 20022 Interview 58, Cambodia, 17 February 2003


Box 7 Current issues: Planning corridors of elephant habitat

Influential conservation charities, such as WWF and WCS are now promoting landscapes as a framework forconservation action in which traditional focus on parks is expanded to include surrounding land-use. The 1990 AsianElephant Action Plan1 promoted the concept of Managed Elephant Range. This is an early example of landscapeconservation, which proposes integrated management of reserves and a ‘productive’ landscape matrix to create an areawhere people and elephants can live in a more harmonious relationship.

Recently, American conservation scientists have argued for the creation of biological corridors on large scales. Indeed,WWF-AREAs states the ultimate goal of landscape conservation is to connect and safeguard networks of protectedareas2. Corridor planning now features prominently in the programmes of WWF, FFI, the Wildlife Trust of India, India’sProject Elephant, and the scientific institutions. However it is not a new idea, between 1954 and 1962 the Sri LankanMinistry of Lands and Land Development designated elephant corridors3 for this purpose.

Two arguments are used to make a case for elephant corridors. 1) To maintain a flow of genes between isolatedpopulation to avoid in-breeding and maintain capacity to adapt to long-term environmental changes. 2) To maintainmigrations between seasonally distributed food sources. The genetic argument is the weaker of the two because geneticmixing concerns could be met by translocating bull elephants.

There are two general aspects to corridor planning and management: i) identification, designation and protection ofcorridors prior to forest conversion and ii) creating or restoring corridors after conversion. The second is enormouslydifficult and expensive, and renders the protection of existing corridors all the more urgent. In 2001, a major EU- fundedproject in north Sumatra restored a 2km long 15km wide corridor between Leuser National Park and Singkil BaratWildlife Sanctuary which involved relocating two villages. The process cost $2million. In south India, it took 16 yearsof persistent lobbying before the forest department secured land to allow elephant movement in theBandipur/Mudumalai protected area complex.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) can be enormously helpful in planning for elephant conservation. If matchedwith field data on elephant movements, they can be persuasive in communicating the consequences of corridorseverance. However, some organisations are investing in the production of grand visions, of corridors linking upreserves and forest patches 50km or more apart. A problem with GIS is that it can make the impossible look possible,and create an illusion of effectiveness among desk-based conservationists. The result is likely to be similar to thatexpressed by C.E. Norris in 1962. ‘I was overjoyed at the far-sighted planning that had been given to wildlife areas,corridors had been allotted to elephants following their traditional migratory routes. The map gave me a feeling ofsecurity. This was shattered when I realised the plan I had seen was no more than a pretty picture. On the ground, areasdefined as faunal areas are being devastated’

A corridor-based conservation vision is comparable to a business vision: it will only stand a chance of success if the setof essential presuppositions can be met. To avoid a repeat of the Sri Lankan experience and a drift into fantasyconservation, we recommend that the presupposition of corridor schemes are identified and explicitly stated and that anindependent and multi-disciplinary review panel attests to their validity. In Asia, typical presuppositions include: aspatial planning process exists and planning regulations can be enforced; land owners and residents within proposedcorridors will accept their designation; elephants will move along designated corridors; the conservation movement canmaintain the necessary levels of motivation and resource inputs over the time scales needed to designate corridors.

A view of a tiny fragment of the hundreds of kilometres of biological corridor that are a key part of the Tesso Landscape Vision 2015being promoted in Sumatra by WWF and Conservation International. The GIS analysis on which the vision is based down-plays thereality of the complex negotiations and agreements needed to designate a corridor covering this small scene. Photo: P.Jepson

Notes: 1.UCN/SSC (1990) The Asian Elephant. An action plan for its conservation. IUCN, Gland., 2 WWF (2002)Asian Rhino and Elephant Action Strategy, 3Annon (1954) Corridors for elephants. Loris 7, 194-195

The goal of the Tesso Nilo project is theestablishment of a new national park to form a200,000 ha elephant sanctuary and biodiversityreserve in Riau province. This is one of the mostbio-diverse regions on earth, where the super-species rich lowland forests are almost gone. Riauis the site of two giant pulp and paper mills whose‘weak due diligence procedures and unrealisticgrowth estimates lured virtually all globally activeinstitutions to inflate the companies with massivedebt’.3 The façade fell apart in 1997-1998 as aresult of the Asian economic crisis and the fall ofIndonesia’s Suharto New Order regime. The twocompanies are now $1.5 billion and $13.5million in debt respectively. Debt restructuringnegotiations centre on determining the cash floweach company can generate and how much of thatcash should be repaid to creditors. Illegal logging isrampant in Riau and the mills maximise cash flowby buying timber from anyone.

WWF’s tactic is to collate evidence that truckscarrying timber cut illegally from the Tesso Niloforests enter the factory gate. It advises the mills oninternational standards for assuring timber is notbought from illegal sources. Then it puts thesqueeze on their creditors and buyers in Europe -particularly Germany - and Japan by pressurisingthese to demand audits of the mill’s sourcing policyas a requirement of servicing their debt or buyingtheir products.

The Tesso Nilo project exemplifies the power ofWWF’s international network. WWF Germany,FoE Holland and WWF Japan are mobilising theircampaign experience for the European andJapanese parts of the strategy whilst Yayasan WWFIndonesia has mobilised its national networks to actas watchdog and negotiator with the pulp mills.

Tesso Nilo is a landmark project, however our fieldvisit left us wondering whether or not elephantconservation is getting left behind in the urgentattempts to secure the forest habitat. Surprisinglylittle appears to be known about the elephants inTesso Nilo. A key management question concernscrop raiding of village oil-palm plantations.However, project staff were unsure whether theproblem lies with a) elephants displaced fromneighbouring forest fragments; b) the elephantpopulation within Tesso Nilo exceeding carryingcapacity; c) elephants within the Tesso Nilo forestbeing driven to the periphery as a result of disturbance

from illegal logging activities. Furthermore, theproject is equivocating on policy issues of greatlocal interest, namely whether a future nationalpark will be an elephant sanctuary for elephantsthat have lost their habitat elsewhere. A drawbackof the WWF organisation is that elephants are asecond tier priority and first level priorities canover-take promising initiatives on the ground. Thishas also happened with the ‘Terai-arc’ project inNepal which started as an AREAs project ‘But it’sbecome more”climate and environment” thanelephants’14 as one WWF insider noted.

Resettlement and forest restorationFew organisations will touch the political hot-potato of resettlement. We came across twoexamples of successful approaches. The first wasmediated by ‘The Friends of Doon’, a citizen’sgroup originally formed to protect the environmentof the Doon valley at the foothills of the Himalayasin Uttaranchal, but also actively concerned withissues surrounding the Rajaji National Park. Thesettlement of Gujjar tribespeople in the parkprevented it achieving full notification in law,while at the same time, studies conducted by thenearby Wildlife Institute of India suggested thatheavy grazing by Gujjar cattle was preventing theregeneration of species constituting elephant food.Working closely with the Forestry Department,Friends of Doon mediated between the partiesinvolved to find a more attractive alternative for theGujjars, and thus kick-start the stalled relocationprocess. They subsequently helped implement andoversee the relocation process, which is wellunderway.

Strengthening enforcementMention has already been made of the issues andproject activities aimed at tackling hunting andpoaching and Box 8 (page 35) adds further detail.Most conservation charities tackle threats toelephants, tiger, rhino and wild cattle concurrently,and many conservationists see demand for ivoryproducts as a driver of elephant poaching in Africaand Asia. Trade in ivory is controlled under theConvention in International Trade in EndangeredSpecies (CITES). A prominent proponent ofbanning all ivory trading is Vivek Menon,executive director of the Wildlife Trust of India andformer staff of TRAFFIC - an NGO closely linkedwith WWF which supports CITES implementation.Mr Menon has amassed and published evidence tosupport the precautionary view to ivory trading


3 Galstra, R. (2003) Elephant Forests for Sale. Rain forestloss in the Sumatran Tesso Nilo region and the role ofEuropean banks and markets. WWF Deutschland,Frankfurt. 4 Interview 78, Indonesia, 13 April 2003

in a popular book ‘Tusker’5 and argues that policyon this issue should be debated on the moral as wellas economic grounds. This is a good example ofan NGO tackling the inter-linked needs ofstrengthening policy frameworks and political andpublic will simultaneously.

Piloting community-based means tocontrol crop raidingThe growing conflict between farmers andelephants is a serious threat to wild elephantpopulations (Box 9, page 36). In the words of Prof.Charles Santiapillai ‘The number of elephants thatany protected area and its surrounding region cansupport will ultimately depend on goodwill andtolerance of the local communities. Not only areelephants being poisoned and shot, but the deaths,damage and fear inflicted on farming communitiesis replacing a traditional sense of empathy with theelephant and hardening perceptions of elephants asa dangerous pest’.

Most projects covered in our survey seek to addressthis issue. We found local charities and citizensgroups to be particularly innovative in this area.The general philosophy is to remind farmers thatthey have chosen to settle in landscapes inhabitedby elephants, and encourage them to see elephantsas a natural hazard, and that they have aresponsibility to use their ingenuity to protect theircrops. In the words of Prof. Santiapillai again,‘human-elephant conflict can be mitigated iffarmers’ perceptions of the elephant can bechanged from that of dangerous agricultural pest toa dependable economic asset’.

Our field visits to conflict areas in India, Sri Lankaand Thailand suggested that farmers were stillwilling to give elephants a chance. Despite regularcrop raiding and damage to property, aspokesperson for a group of women interviewed inAssam stated forcefully, ‘we have lived in a land ofelephants and we won’t live in a land withoutelephants’. An attitude survey conducted by FFI’sCELA project in Aceh found the majority of ruralpeople believed elephants had a right to exist (Box6, page21).

Sri Lanka has a range of NGO activities seekingsolutions to human-elephant conflict. Two localcharities, the Wildlife Preservation and NatureSociety and the Biodiversity & ElephantConservation Trust (BECT) are running educationand awareness campaigns. ‘They see [the elephant]as a spectre that comes at night and destroys theircrops, breaks their houses, smashes them up, kills

some people’ commented one leader who went onto explain that their goal is to offer a more balancedand positive perspective of the elephant: ‘[we] alsotry and get [the farmer] into thinking of conservingthe elephant – but to think of conserving theelephant he must see some benefit’. Sri Lankan’ssee two main hopes in this respect. One iscommunity- based ecotourism, where farmerssupplement their income by acting as guides. ‘Iconstantly get called by people and local groupswanting to see elephants. So there is demand – amarket-- for elephant-watching’,6 commented oneinterviewee. Another option is safaris by elephant.These are beginning in India, but are difficult tostart up because they require specially- trainedelephants that will stand in the face of a wild herd.In Sri Lanka it was also thought likely that therewould be resistance from the politically- powerfuljeep owners wishing to maintain their control overferrying tourists around national parks. A secondpossibility of thinking of elephants as a benefit isin cottage industries making paper products fromelephant dung. This is being championed by theCeylon Conservation Trust. A successfuldemonstration factory employing 70 local peoplehas been established by Maximus Pvt inconjunction with Millennium Elephant Foundation.Another businessman and founder of the trusttalked passionately of the need for cottageindustries, not only to reduce the need to clearforest but also to provide employment for the manyvillagers in the north injured in Sri Lanka’s longcivil war.

‘Men who’ve lost an arm can still collect elephantdung, and if you’ve lost a leg you can still make thevalue-added – paper cards, lampshades and soon…I displayed at the Ambdande trade show inFrankfurt and there is big demand for elephantdung paper products. A paper factory costs$30,000 to start up. It employs 10-15 peoplecollecting dung, 30 on the production line, 30 forvalue- added.’

An associate of the BECT and engineer withMotorola believes technology can help farmersprotect their crops. He explained that the traditionof staying up all night in watchtowers is dying, andthat costs and maintenance problems associatedwith fences make them unviable in many contexts.In his view, ‘people are scared of chasing themaway because suddenly you are surprised when anelephant is stood right next to you and the elephanttramples you but if you have enough warning – ifyou know the elephant is there, it’s not too difficultto chase it away – people are quite willing to do

5 Menon, V. (2002). Tusker. The story of the Asian Elephant. Penguin, India. 6 Interview 53, Sri Lanka, 30 December 2002

34


that, especially in outlying areas, so a warningsystem is quite a good idea’ He started with ‘halftechnologies’ - simple trip-wire made of fishinglines linked to an alarm. Everything needed isavailable from the local shop, and systems costabout $20. More ambitiously a system to detectelephants using infra-sound is under development.‘Our goal is a $100-$200 black box that we can

just place in the field …Every year we (Motorola)have two graduates from the University ofEngineering at Colombo who work for us for a yearbefore they go for grad studies in the US. We alsowe have two interns so we have four rotatingresearchers working full-time on the research anddevelopment’.

Box 8 Current issues: law enforcementAll Asian countries with wild elephants have laws prohibiting their hunting and have signed international treatiescontrolling wildlife trade, however poaching-syndicates remain a serious threat. Techniques used by conservationcharities to fight wildlife crime are now being applied to elephant poaching. These include private prosecutions andunder- cover operations backed up with media exposés and campaigns.

India, Sri Lanka, and Thailand have wild elephants and a free and independent judiciary. In India and Sri Lanka, NGOsnot only support the prosecution of offenders but have recently used public interest legislation to take state governmentsto court for failing to protect elephants. Limits to press freedom restrict media eposés in most of Asia, but Thailand hasthe freest press in the region and the charity WildAid has launched high impact media campaigns through a partnershipwith an international advertising agency. These currently focus on shark fin and turtle products but a future campaignon elephants is under consideration.

WildAid is also leading one of the most significant new enforcement trends in Asia. This is the mobilisation of armedenforcement teams comprising wildlife, military and police personnel and organised by western military advisorsdubbed ‘eco-mercenaries’1 in a recent New York Times article. WildAid are active in the south-west elephant corridorin Cambodia’s Cardamom mountains while Conservation International (CI) are doing likewise in the centralCardamoms. Cambodia’s military has been described as ‘a poorly organised business with guns that hires itself out assecurity and body guards’, but CI and WildAid point out that promoting involvement of the military in enforcementactivities to uphold law will help drive desperately needed military reforms, and that the status of Cambodia’s wildlifeis so perilous that without tough action, the potential for its future recovery would be lost within ten years. These arecompelling arguments, and ones that resonate with the growing numbers of donors and conservationists fed-up withwatching millions being poured into conservation projects while syndicates decimate the last remnants of Asia’s mega-fauna.

Embracing military tactics to protect elephants from poaching syndicates has its risks. However, unease concerning theCI-WildAid approach is present on a number of fronts. Local people are ignorant about the existence of wildlife lawsand the dire state of wildlife. Without such knowledge, the appearance of enforcement units might be perceived as justanother power moving in to secure an area and continue the regime of fear. There is a risk that NGOs will be perceivedas establishing their own fiefdoms and justifying this on the basis that a western NGO will be more benevolent than alocal Cambodian timber baron. If and when these charities pull out, the protectors might turn poachers, and when thenew government wildlife department does establish a field presence, the military may be reluctant to give up their shareof the funding pie. In short, the worry is that such approaches are creating all sorts of problems for the future.

1 Hitt, J (2002) The Eco-Mercenaries. New York Times 4 Aug 2002


Box 9 Current issues: Human-elephant conflictElephants come into conflict with humans because parts of their home range are cleared, forcing them to seek foodelsewhere; because crops are palatable and more nutritious than natural foods; and because disturbance by activitiessuch as illegal logging forces them to the edge of forest patches. Among elephant experts the general perception is thathuman-elephant conflict has escalated in terms of distribution and intensity since the start of the 1990s. Human andelephant deaths are on the increase. It seems that many elephants react to harassment by becoming more aggressive. Itis estimated that in north India 250 people have been killed by elephants in the last 2 years, whilst the 250 elephants inwest Bengal are reputed to have killed more than 500 people over a 12- year period. Escalating human-elephant conflictcreates fear and erodes the tolerance towards elephants that is deeply embedded among many Asian peoples on accountof their long cultural association with elephants. The root problem is expansion of agriculture and settlement in theabsence of wise land-use planning.

Using deterrents such as spotlights and thunder-crackers is the first-line of defense against elephants throughout Asia.However, elephants quickly lose their fear and become more aggressive. The potential of irritants as deterrents - inparticular chilli powder pastes, smoke and bombs - is currently under evaluation. Physical barriers such as electricfences and trenches are widely used in India and Sri Lanka, but maintenance is a problem and elephants soon learn howto break through. Compensation is paid to farmers in many parts of India and Sri Lanka. Whilst this signifies to farmersthat the government recognises the problem, bureaucratic skimming of payments is rife and the need for repeated visitsto a government office can magnify the true scale of the elephant problem in the farmer’s mind. Elephant- basedlivelihoods (see text) and changing cropping patterns are being researched at sites in India and Sri Lanka. A majorchallenge is identifying crops a) which elephants don’t eat and are resistant to trampling and b) for which there is anestablished market and agricultural commodity chains. Another hurdle is entrenched farmer attitudes. For example,most smallholder farmers in Sumatra are convinced that cultivating oil palm will secure their livelihood. Unfortunately,elephants feed on the ‘hearts’ of 3 to 5- year old oil palms. This is a point close to first production when a farmer’sinvestment is at its maximum.

Dealing with crop-raiding requires a combination of the above techniques blended with the local situation andconsistently applied. It requires knowledge and leadership and willingness on the part of governments and farmers toaccept shared responsibility for implementation. The reality is often that no one takes responsibility. Farmers say thatlegal protection of elephants means they are owned by the state and therefore the government’s responsibility.Politicians and bureaucrats view elephants as a wildlife issue and delegate responsibility to chronically under-resourcedwildlife departments. The response of officials may be that farmers have chosen to settle in elephant habitat and they

should consider elephants as an environmental constraint,like water shortages or poor soils, and adapt their farmingpractices accordingly.

Once conflict between humans and elephants has escalatedthe solutions appear to be either to separate humans andelephants by giving the elephants space or exterminatingthem . If there was serious government will to deal withthe issue, human-elephant conflict would not exist attoday’s serious scale. Unfortunately, ignoring the problemmay be a political, expedient means of solving theproblem. Desperate farmers, fearing for their crops,property and family, but also the consequences of takingdirect action against a protected species, will discreetlypoison elephants or pay corrupt police officers to shootthem. The elephants and the issue will fade away. But notbefore trauma and deaths to both people and elephantshave occurred.

At night groups of pioneer farmers in Assam use burning spearsto drive elephants from the crops. Photo: Paul Jepson

The quality and impact ofelephant conservation projectsThis section asks what is the quality of NGOelephant projects? In short, do individual projectshave the potential to make a lasting impact? Ourview is that elephant conservation will emergefrom a system of will, resources, frameworks andimplementation agencies. Strengthening any oneof these elements represents an important goal foran elephant project.

Overall, the elephant conservation communityneeds to work on all elements of the system but webelieve there is merit in individual charities andprojects focusing on areas where they haveparticular expertise and/or which are close to theirhearts.

A ‘Project Scorecard’ assessmentmethodologyA framework was devised for assessing theperformance of conservation projects and appliedto the field of wild elephant conservation. Theprocess was informed by business performancemeasurement (the balanced scorecard), systemstheory and consumer reports (scorecards).

This framework allowed us to set out the relevantfeatures of the operational context with whichconservation movements as a whole must engage.Charities can now target their efforts and expertiseaccordingly. The framework also allowed us tolook at the process of conservation delivery - andthus assess likely long-term success - by lookingbeyond short-term project activities to examine theprocesses that link these with the achievement oflong-term strategic objectives.

The framework is based on three key premises:1. That there is a need for change in most societiesto secure the survival of endangered species,natural monuments and a healthy environment.2. That conservation charities lead and represent awider conservation movement seeking socialchange through the adoption of sets of valuesconcerning the human-natural world relationship. 3. That each conservation project should beassessed first on its specific goals and then in thecontext of wider conservation goals.

The Balanced Scorecard is used in business andgovernment to help develop and measure strategy.It places vision and strategy at its centre andincludes four management processes that‘separately, and in-combination, contribute to

link long-term strategic objectives with short-termactions’. This statement captures the link betweenindividual conservation projects and goals of theconservation movement, as described above. Eachof the four processes in the balanced scorecardcorrelates to a system with an equivalent in thedelivery of conservation projects (Table 6).

Table 6: Conceptual links between the‘Balanced scorecard’ and the project scorecard

State of Asian Elephant Conservation in 2003

The five systems and sub systems in our projectscorecard are shown schematically in Box 1 (page5). ‘Hard systems’ considers the organisationalmanagement systems of the charity running theproject. Does it have the solid personnel andfinancial management systems, fund-raisingcapacity, and the physical assets of an office- baseand equipment to ensure a stable foundation foraction in the long term? ‘Soft systems’ consider thepeople running the project: does the project havegood leadership and competent and motivatedstaff? ‘Mandate’ was also included, because thisprovides projects with legitimacy, partnerships andbuy-in that successful conservation solutionsrequire. ‘Transactions’ considers whether projectshave done what they were contracted to do, eitherunder grant proposals or publicly throughpronouncements in publicity material (i.e. trackrecord). We considered three aspects to this:progress with annual work plans; short-termobjectives; strategic objectives. ‘Transformations’considers whether the project is having widerimpact: is it contributing to a change in attitudesand generating lasting and meaningful support forthe cause?

Each element of the system was ranked on a five-point scale – very weak to strong. Reasonablescores under each element are more likely to createa system with emergent properties leading to long-term improvements in the status of wild elephantconservation and management. The findings arepresented in Tables 7 and 8 (pages 40 and 43).

37

To guide the assessment of each element, wedevised a suite of objectives (or processes) tocapture aspects of these elements, and then devisedsets of measures to assess the quality of eachobjective. We then weighted the importance ofeach process to the overall system and setthresholds to assign the element on the five-pointscale. In some cases we were able to adaptestablished, organisational objectives andmeasures. However, because our approach toconservation is new, we formulated several more.The method was devised following a literaturereview and consultation with colleagues.

It should be noted that the balanced scorecard is notused as a tool to compare between organisations.The Project Scorecard described above takes thisstep. We believe this is valid because the fivesystems appear generic to all conservation projectsand we found it feasible to rate the strength of eachon a simple five- point scale. However, not allprojects will need strong systems in all areas to beeffective. For example, a small NGO has less needfor strong ‘hard systems’ than does an NGOmanaging large projects as part of an internationalprogramme. This means that our assessment ismore nuanced and the scorecards less simple tointerpret.

Projects consideredOur survey identified charities with projects aimedat conserving Asian elephants in the wild. Weincluded those NGOs and projects withimplementation activities extending over more thanone year and taking place during the period 2000-2003. NGOs conducting planning studies for futureprojects were excluded. We also omitted fromconsideration Integrated Conservation andDevelopment Projects covering protected areaswith elephant populations and funded bydevelopment agencies, on the basis that they do notinclude elephant conservation as a stated objective.Projects omitted are listed in Box 10. Thisnarrowed the field to a mere 21 projects.

Box 10 Projects not assessedStill in planning phaseWCS Myanmar and LaoNewly-established

Ceylon Conservation Trust – see textWildlife Society of Orissa. Investigating changes ofland-use and cropping pattern in Orissa. Insufficientinformation for scorecard analysisSalim Ali / AVC College. Alternative livelihoods tominimise degradation of elephant habitat. Insufficient information for scorecard analysis

Integrated conservation & development projectsGov. of Indonesia & Leuser Fundation., Leuser Development Project, Sumatra.Gov. of Indonesia. Kerinci Seblat ICDP, SumatraGov. of Vietnam & WWF, Cat Tien National Park Projects.

Many charities integrate elephants as part of widerprojects focusing on large mammal conservation,wildlife crime or national park management. Tofocus the scope of the audit we selected only thoseprojects that are NGO-led and which we mightrecommend to those wanting to make a direct andspecific contribution to elephant conservation.Thus we included a project by the Cat ActionTreasury in Cambodia which was conceived as ananti-tiger poaching initiative on the basis that it isalso controlling elephant poaching, but exclude theWWF Cat Tien project in Vietnam becauseelephant conservation is not a central feature of theproject and there is no mechanism to directly investin their elephant work.

A related difficulty was whether to audit thestrategy, vision and team of the charity as a whole,or only for specific activity relating to elephants.This was more problematic with the larger INGOs.For example, the WWF Tesso Nilo elephant projecthas now blossomed into a major project to combatillegal logging. Ultimately, it was impossible to sethard and fast rules and for borderline cases theselection of projects and ratings reflect ourjudgement on where to draw the line and balancecomplex interactions.

Findings of the scorecard analysisOverall assessment of NGO wild elephant projectsThe first finding of this study is that the NGOresponse to the issues of wild elephant conservationis limited compared to the geographic scale andcomplexity of the problem. We could only identify21 projects with a clear elephant conservationfocus. India had the highest number (6), butCambodia the most–relative to the size of thecountry and the elephant population. Moreover,most NGO action for wild elephant conservation isrelatively recent and clearly a response to the grantaid made available in 1999 by the US governmentthrough its Asian Elephant Conservation Fund(AECF) (see Box 11, page 39). The exceptionswere the Wildlife & Nature Protection Society ofSri Lanka which has a 100 year old history ofeffort, and Fauna & Flora International, whichcommenced projects in 1994. The World WideFund for Nature (WWF) has mounted severalshort-lived elephant projects since the mid-1970s,however its current AREAs programme is a clearresponse to the AECF.



Box 11 The US Asian ElephantConservation Act and Fund

In November 1997 the US government passed the AsianElephant Conservation Act to establish a fund ‘to assistin the conservation of Asian elephants by supporting andproviding financial resources for the conservationprogrammes of nations within the range of the Asianelephants and funding project of persons withdemonstrated expertise in the conservation of Asianelephants’. Congress appropriated US$1,944, 500 to thefund between 1999-2001. The fund has been re-authorised for a second five year period beginning 2003.It is managed by the Division of InternationalConservation of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

The Act came into being through a partnership between alobbyist – an ex-congressman from Florida with a sincereconcern for elephants - and the Ringling Brothers Circuswho keep performing elephants. Recognising theinfluence of the animal welfare lobby, FeldEntertainment who own Ringling felt they needed acorporate stance on elephants and lobbying for agovernment fund to support wild Asian elephantconservation was part of this. The idea received crossparty support because senators and congressmenrecognised it would be popular with electorates and thesums involved are paltry in comparison to the overallgovernment budget.

The fund has stimulated conservation NGOs to launchnew projects and programmes to conserve wild elephantpopulations. WWF launched its AREAs project inresponse to the passing of this Act and companionAct/fund for rhinos. Because virtually all conservationNGOs with elephant projects receive grants from thisfund and are required to report matching funds, thereported breakdown of expenditure (opposite) provides areasonable estimate of funds being spent by elephantprojects managed by conservation NGOs.

The US government deserves praise for its leadership inthe conservation of wild elephants because without thisfund their NGO activity would be extremely limited.

India and the US are the only two governments that allocate specific budgets for the conservation and management ofelephants. We urge other governments to follow their example because without a major increase in dedicated funds theAsian elephant is unlikely to survive in the long term.

Source: redrawn from USF&W Asian Elephant ConservationAct Summary Report 1999-2001

AECF Grants$1,841,010

Range country NGO

International NGO

Academic institution

Other

Range countrygovernement

Surveys & monitoring

Wildlife protection

Applied research

Capacity building

Conservation education

Habitat management

Conflict resolution

Matching funds &in-kind contributions$1,729,070

Grant & Matching Funds



52%

35%

23%

23%

5%

5%

14%

11%

7%24%

23%

16%

14%

48%


Table 7: Comparative rating of elephant conservation projects run by conservation NGOs

Our assessment framework rated the strength ofeach of five systems that together create thepotential for an organisation or project to makemeaningful and lasting contributions to theconservation of wild elephants. No projects rated‘very good’ in terms of overall potential forimpact, but just over half were rated as ‘good’according to our system. India had the mostprojects in this category and the most local andnationally-run initiatives. This reflects a keyfinding of this study, namely that more projects runby local and national NGOs rated as having a goodpotential for impact than was the case in the INGOcategory.

In our assessment, this is in part a reflection of thesmaller scale of focus (either geographic orthematic) of national NGOs, which means thatissues are conceptually more tractable. Becausestaff of local NGOs are generally from the region,they tend to have deeper understandings of thepolitical, bureaucratic and social structures anddynamics, which helps in targeting the nub of theproblem. Moreover, because local NGO activistslive in a locality, they tend to have more personalcontacts in different sectors of society who they candraw on for advice or to mobilise programmes.This means that small resources can often be usedto very good effect.

organisational complexities inherent in larger ones.Such complexities are magnified in someinternational NGOs such as WWF, who attempt toset and report a global strategy embracing wildlife,environmental and sustainable development goalsbased on equal consensus and participation ofoffices staffed by people of different cultures.

In fairness to the larger NGOs, they often attemptlarger tasks, such as establishing new reserves,where it is difficult to pre-define time-scales orassure success. There is a valid argument thatcomparative assessments such as this one willadvantage smaller NGOs because the impacts of amore limited focus are easier to see. However, thepotential social impacts of large- scale projects andthe resources they consume are magnified. Theseprojects also have greater responsibilities totransparency and accountability concerningperformance. Generally, we found smaller, locally-based projects to be more open about theiractivities and budgets than the larger projects ledby international staff and consultants.

Among INGOs, the WWF family has the largestnumber of elephant projects (6), with a total annualbudget estimated at $2million pa. This is far inexcess of any other NGO project or programme.

In our assessment, the likelihood of the impact ofindividual, site-based projects in the WWFportfolio is mixed. While we rated projects in TessoNilo (Indonesia) and Sabah as good, two WWFfamily projects were among the worst of thoseassessed. These were the so-called ‘North Bank’project in Assam, India and the ‘Reintroduction ofcaptive elephants’ project in Thailand. The formersuffers from the chronic organisationaldysfunctionality that has weakened WWF Indiafollowing changes in leadership in the early 1990s.As a result, most of the organisation’s committedand experienced conservationists have left.

The WWF Thailand project was the only casewhere we found indications of poor professionalpractice. This project is financed by an ‘AdoptBilbou’ scheme run under the adopt-an-animalfund-raising campaign of WWF-UK. Elephantexperts we interviewed recognised the basic idea ofreturning ‘surplus’ captive elephants to forests inThailand where elephants had become extinct wassound. There was, however, widespread (andsometimes scathing) concern that the project wasprimarily a means to curry favour with the Thairoyal family and the Bangkok governing elite and

Furthermore, local NGOs are smaller operationsand therefore avoid the bureaucra t ic and

Box 12 Web-sites of projects assessedOrganisations with websitesCat Action Treasury (Cambodia) www.felidae.orgFauna & Flora International www.fauna-flora.org/around_the_world/asiaInternational Fund for Animal Welfarewww.ifaw.orgNature Conservation Foundation www.ncf-india.orgWWF Asia Rhino & Elephant Strategywww.wwf-areas.netWWF India www.wwfindia.orgWWF Indonesia www.wwf.or.idWWF Malaysia www.wwfmalaysia.orgWWF Thailand www.wwfthai.orgWildAid www.wildaidasia.orgWildlife Conservation Society www.wcs.orgWildlife Trust of India www.wildlifetrustofIndia.orgWildlife Protection Society of Indiawww.wpsi-india.org

Other web-sitesAsian Elephant Conservation Fund.http://international.fws.fov.usProject Elephant www.envfor.nic.in/pe


had not adhered to basic professional and scientificstandards. The technical team of WWF’s AREAsprogramme appears to have disowned the project.1

On hearing that we had assessed the project, WWF-UK stopped its funding, apparently as a precautionagainst any negative publicity directed to WWF asa result of this study.2

We are concerned that WWF may be using theappeal of elephants as a means to develop projectsaddressing issues of greater strategic interest to theorganisation. The worry is that projects initiallypromoted as an elephant conservation initiativemorph into something quite different withelephants being sidelined. A case in point is thereport ‘Elephant forests for sale’3 which focuses onthe Tesso Nilo forest but is actually about acampaign against the pulp and paper industry. Inorder to help assure the long-term impact ofinvestments in AREAs, we recommend that WWFestablish an independent review panel who publiclyreport on the performance of activities claimingto have direct relevance to Asian elephantconservation.

Rated against our system, the chances of projects inthe Fauna & Flora International Asian elephantconservation programme achieving long termimpact seems poor. In Indochina, FFI has relied onyoung western biologists making the transitionfrom volunteer to paid employment. By contrast, inIndonesia, FFI has one of the largest elephantconservation projects financed with a $300k annualbudget over three years and nearly 30 staff. Whilethe team has a good blend of skills andbackgrounds, they have struggled to make animpact in a difficult and complex socio-politicalsetting. The FFI-CELA project illustrates theimportant point that successful projects cannot becreated simply by securing funds and appointingsuitably-qualified staff.

Strategy and VisionElephant conservation requires sustained actionover time. A compelling, credible andcommunicated vision and strategy document,written by the NGO or project concerned, is neededto maintain consistency, motivate and inspire staff,generate buy-in from other agencies and buildpublic support.

Overall, local NGOs rated best on strategy andvision. This is because our assessment gave weightto communication of vision and values and theknowledge base of the strategy. Both are easier toachieve in small close-knit organisations workingon a local area. Leaders of most projects had a goodunderstanding of the issues surrounding elephantsand the cultural and environmental context of theiroperations. Although local charities commit less topaper and websites, their depth of knowledge wasrevealed when we interviewed them.

Our overall assessment, that systems relating tostrategy and vision are fair or stronger, may be toogenerous. There are good arguments that a keyelement of this system is a written strategy andvision document. This is needed because NGOsorganise their activities according to one to three-year projects and gaps and changes in personnelbetween projects are the norm. Moreover, thetrend towards greater public transparency andaccountability generates a need for suchdocuments. Very few NGOs assessed had adocument outlining their long-term plans andvision for elephant conservation. Some feel this isunnecessary if the issues they are concerned withare short-term and local in nature.

The most compelling strategy document reviewedin terms of clarity and coherence was that ofWildAid, but this deals with wildlife crime ingeneral and their elephant angle is not yet welldeveloped. The most comprehensive document isthat of the WWF AREA programme, whoseattractive strategy document and background reportauthored by leading elephant experts is available ontheir web sites. In many projects the overall visionand strategy was not afforded enough importancein communications. In the case of Fauna & FloraInternational, their activities appear to involve aportfolio of projects that fill areas where FFI sees aneed.The organisation’s claims to an Asia andIndochina elephant programme were not supportedby a unifying vision and strategy laid out in anydocument seen during this exercise.


1 Interview 78, Indonesia, 13 April 2003.2 Phone conversation with WWF Programme manager.3 Galstra, R. (2003) Elephant Forests for Sale. Rain forestloss in the Sumatran Tesso Nilo region and the role ofEuropean banks and markets. WWF Deutschland,Frankfurt.


Table 8: Assessment of the strength of five systems that together generate likelihood of conservationimpact in 21 Asian elephant conservation projects

Few projects included their principles and values aspart of their vision, even though they are central tomotivating and guiding and actions. A notableexception is the century-old Wildlife and NaturePreservation Society of Sri Lanka. When askedabout this aspect, the President’s response was ‘ourvalues are contained and discussed in the writingsin our journal’.1 Charities with a wildlife crime andwelfare focus were stronger in this regard.

A notable gap in all strategies reviewed was anassessment by organisations of their own capacitiesand those of partner agencies. Projects receivinggrant aid from the USF&W fund (the majority) aresubject to scientific peer review, but no system is inplace to assure capacity to deliver. Attitudesincluded ‘we will reduce our activities to fit ourresources’ or ‘we will get the capacity fromsomewhere when we need to’.2 This can work but isrisky. In particular, projects that create unrealisticor unfulfilled expectations among localstakeholders can lead to animosity anddisillusionment that can be very difficult to rectify.

Organisational systemsOver the last ten years most conservation NGOshave improved their personnel and financialmanagement systems. Most projects rated fair orabove. More stringent requirements byinternational donors has undoubtedly drivenimprovements in financial management systems,but we found widespread recognition of the generalrule of thumb that once an organization growsbeyond 15 staff it is necessary to installmanagement systems. When asked about thisaspect, a Director of an Indian NGO expressedwhat is involved and the benefits ‘Oh, we’ve doneall that! We’ve got everything from maternity leaveto you know, everything. What happened was twoyears ago we hired an administrative expert. Andhe was allowed a free reign. What he did was tolook at us and say, well you’re a bunch of idiots.But he started to structure us, he structured ourcontracts, our leave, changed our entire system,which is amazing. He has done a brilliant job. Sowe can still behave like we do, but we now have atotally solid structure behind us. It took two yearsto perfect it.’ 3

In terms of accountability and openness, of theINGOs surveyed, WCS was the most helpful.Staff supplied proposals, reports and budgets,

access to other staff and took an interest in the auditconcept themselves. The same was true of most ofthe smaller local NGOs that we met. Cat ActionTreasury even publish their budgets on their website.

Capacity to ActIn looking at an organisation’s capacity to act, wewere concerned with whether an organisation hadthe elements that would ensure the effectivedelivery of their vision and strategy for elephants.By their very nature, civil society organisationstend to have committed personnel, and to be opento learning and innovation, and this was generallythe case with the organisations we looked at,however leadership varied widely.

Because local NGOs are in immediate contact withthe local community, achieving a local mandatewas important for the success of their operations.Hutan, for example, attributed part of their successto the fact that they didn’t arrive with a pre-determined programme but discussed with both thelocal community and the government how theycould best use their expertise and concerns aswildlife conservationists. Their policy ofemploying and training local villagers has resultedin a dynamic and effective team. One of theiremployees attended a WWF-AREAS workshop onhuman-elephant conflict in India, where he realisedthat the level of conflict was still manageable in hisown area. He was inspired to recruit friends andfamily to build up a conflict management systemfashioned on the flying squads of Bengal. This isnow being developed to implement a variety ofsolutions with the aim of restoring moreharmonious relationships with elephants.

This does not necessarily mean that largerorganisations did not show some of these features,but many appear detached from the local situation,largely due to being constrained by centrally-generated directives and structures that are oftennot appropriate to the realities of the local context.Their large scale means they have to be moreambitious in their aims and, to guarantee funding,are often impatient for quantifiable results. This canwork against projects that are built up slowly andfine-tuned to the local context.

Project deliveryThis section was not just looking at whether projectobjectives were being delivered but the degree towhich these were contributing to overarchingstrategies. For projects with ambitious or open-ended strategic goals, such as


1 Interview 140, Sri Lanka2 Interview 78, Indonesia, 13 April 20033 Interview 14, India, 16 December 2002

‘improving the capacity of the forest department’ or‘increasing public awareness in areas of human-elephant conflict’, it is more likely that the specificproject activities could only partially address them.One way of looking at this is to aim high and try toget as close as possible to achieving the ideal, andthis can work, however as previously noted, therisk is that resources are channelled towardsstrategies that may be unfulfilled or unrealistic, ifnot combined with a clear analysis of all aspects ofthe situation, or if there is an unwillingness to facethe implications of such an analysis becausedelivering a high-impact project becomes toodifficult.

The smaller, local NGOs often scored well becausethey tended to be focused on a clear, achievableissue with actions well targeted to the needs of thesituation. An example is the Nature ConservationFoundation who are examining an acute human-elephant conflict in the densely populated teaestates of the Anamalai hills in southern India. Theestates represent an 20,000 hectare islandsurrounded by forest, and elephants cross from oneside to another. By looking at the routes they take,understanding their needs, and then comparingthese with the nature and incidence of conflict, theproject is designing a mitigation strategy thatshould ensure their long-term survival.

The impact of local projects however, occurs at asmall scale. There is therefore a clear scope forpartnership between NGOs at all levels wherebytheir strengths are combined to facilitate theeffective flow of funds to the ground. This is oftenhampered by the smaller NGOs feeling constrainedby inappropriate requirements. One local NGOleader expressed frustration at not being able torecruit locally because, although there were manycapable people, they had no formal qualifications,and the donor required that all staff have degrees.Such tensions were exacerbated by the feeling thatthe larger NGOs took all the ‘glory’.

Social ImpactThis measures the ability to have a lasting impacton government will and public support. Initiativesthat succeeded in this tended to involve an initialappraisal of attitudes, followed by activities thathelped either the government or local communitiesto solve a problem.

Hutan, the umbrella organisation for the elephantconflict initiative in Sabah, visited every householdin the area over a period of a year to determinelocal attitudes to wildlife, and guided by this

information has achieved notable successes inaltering local attitudes to wildlife.

Political will in Sabah has been strengthened byWWF-AREAS, who lobbied and supported thegovernment in producing a state action plan for itselephants. Meanwhile, the WWF-AREAS projectin Sumatra scored well on its support of thedynamic Indonesian NGO movement to bolsterpressure for change.

Both projects scored on their engagement with theprivate sector, however we felt that there was muchmore scope for NGOs to engage with the privatesector and mobilise support from individuals oreven pro-bono activities, such as the free mediacampaign secured by WildAid in Thailand from anadvertising agency.

The Centre for Environmental Education inAhmedabad, India, is focused on generating willand so scored highly. It was also effective in usingexisting networks of local officers, NGOs andteachers to produce an educational package ofelephant conservation materials for use in 500schools in 12 states in India. Through these schoolchildren, the messages of the project reached thewider networks of their families and friends. Therewas also an unforeseen bonus in that the materialsproduced were of such a standard that the Directorof Project Elephant recommended their use in thetraining of forest department staff.


So far as we are aware, this is the first attempt at anindependent conservation audit of a single thematicarea within conservation. Asian elephantconservation was a good test case for such an‘audit’. This is because there is widespread publicinterest in the fate of the elephant; its conservationinvolves addressing some of the most difficultconservation challenges; and a range of differentorganisations are involved in the conservationeffort.

The move towards greater accountability andtransparency concerning the policies andprogrammes of NGO organisations appears to bean inevitable consequence of globalisation and theenhanced power and influence of civil society. Thenumbers, scale, reach and influence of NGOs isexpected to grow.1 The legitimacy and impact ofcivil society organisations will increasingly dependon systems of governance, accountability and theirperformance. The development of approaches,frameworks and mechanisms to enabletransparency and participation is likely to be afeature of the next decade. Success in this area,probably measured in terms of agreed standardsand frameworks, will indicate the coming- of- ageof civil society. NGOs in the humanitarian aidsector are more advanced in this area and theconservation sector is now beginning to recognisethe need.

Independent conservation audits have the potentialto raise standards, establish best performancebenchmarks and maintain public trust andconfidence in NGOs. They also have a role to playin meeting due diligence procedures, which arelikely to become more important as NGO trusteeand governing boards are held more accountablefor the policies and performance of the NGOexecutive.

One important question concerns who canlegitimately conduct an independent conservationaudit? We often asked ourselves what gave us theright to visit elephant projects, ask questions, takeup people’s time and then attach ‘scores’ to theirwork. We based our mandate to conduct this studyon a combination of a) our experience inconservation (science, management and policy); b)our commission from an elephant conservationcharity; c) buy-in for the idea by key individuals

in the large conservation NGOs and d) a generalrecognition that there is a need to develop and testframeworks and address issues of performancemeasurement within conservation.2 These will notbe sufficient in the future, especially onceorganisations realise that the results of audits mightaffect funding, their subscriber base and access topolicy fora. If the concept of independentconservation audits is to take root we suggest that itwill be essential to establish one or more credibleaudit frameworks and for these to be implementedby respected independent conservationists.

To be credible they will also need to be modest incost and repeated at regular intervals. This auditcost $100,000 and has taken 20 person months oftime. Admittedly, a substantial proportion of thishas gone on devising the audit framework. None-the-less, the resources needed to undertake anindependent audit should not be under-estimatedand it is important to ask whether this cost willtranslate into more effective conservation on theground.

Establishing an agreed framework and standardsfor independent conservation auditing (andperformance measurement) will require theconservation establishment to engage in a processthat tackles the following issues:

1. The diversity of organisations operating underthe civil society umbrella and claiming to beNGOs. At one end of the scale are the ‘threeunemployed graduates with a laptop’ NGOs and atthe other are major international organisations suchas WWF. A prerequisite for comparative studieswould be a classification of conservationorganisations. No such classification orcharacterisation is currently available but thisshould not be too complex to devise and could initself be an important contribution to transparencyand accountability in conservation. Related to this,is how to incorporate the influence of varyingoperating contexts into the process of scoringagainst the audit measures.

2. The organisation of conservation delivery isoften quite different to the way it is packaged todonors, the media and public constituencies. Inreality many NGOs run integrated field projectsaddressing a range of related issues and financed

46

End piece- reflections on conducting an independentconservation audit

1 Sustainability (2003) The 21st Century NGO:In the market for change.www.sustainability.com/publications

2 See for example: Randerson, J (2003) Nature’s Best Buys. New Scientist 1 March.

from grants packaged to meet the priorities ofdifferent donors. This makes it very difficult toassess any one element, such as the conservation ofAsian elephants. We think that NGOs will need toaddress this issue. The widespread practice ofraising money for cause A but then runningprojects that address causes B and C that mightalso support cause A is generally accepted byinstitutional donors but to what degree do thepublic support such action?

3. Potential users of this study and otherconservation audits want an assessment of cost-effectiveness. Despite concerted efforts, we failedto access sufficient financial data to even develop aframework for assessing cost- effectiveness. SomeNGOs provided us with project proposals, butmany were unable to produce any meaningfulfinancial information. We think there were threereasons for this i) attitude of secrecy concerningfinancial information; ii) the difficulty ofdisaggregating elephant-related income andexpenditure; iii) uncertainty about standards inNGO financial practices and fear of revealingpractices that others might consider questionable.Yet, cost-effectiveness is likely to be one of the firstareas where NGOs, especially INGOs, are expectedto demonstrate transparency and accountability.

4. An important debate concerns the use ofquantitative and qualitative indicators in auditframeworks. One school of thought argues forquantitative and measurable indicators on thegrounds that they are more objective andrepeatable, and proposes that a small set of ‘solid’quantitative indicators is preferable to a large set ofqualitative indicators. We took the alternativeapproach of using a large set of mostly qualitativeindicators for two reasons. First, we believe that

many essential aspects of effective conservation arequalitative in nature and difficult to capture in aquantitative form. The risk of the quantitativeargument is that it assesses projects on what can bemeasured, not what matters. Second, our initialsurvey of elephant conservation showed that therewas very little consistent quantitative dataavailable. None-the-less we subscribe to a balanceof the two. We acknowledge that the present studymay be too qualitative in nature, but to change this,conservation NGOs need to produce morequantitative data on their operations andresearchers need to identify and agree on the typesof data and levels of detail that are useful andappropriate.

5. The benefits of independent conservation audits– which amount to independent peer review–havenot been established. Any audit will only be asgood as the co-operation received from those beingassessed. Co-operation is more likely ifconservation professionals see positive benefitsfrom the process and regard the exercise asconstructive. Balancing this with the need to tellthings as they are and provide a fair assessmentto external stakeholders–in particular publicconstituencies, memberships and donors–willrequire generally–agreed professional standardsand audit methodologies.

Despite the problems and challenges, the process ofconducting this audit has confirmed our initialintuition that independent audits are needed andhave the potential to improve the performance andimpact of conservation delivery. We believe there issome way to go before independent conservationaudits become standard practice and hope that thisstudy will be a useful contribution towardsreaching this goal.


table of contents · 2005-08-02 · land in populous asia is intense. in informal settings...

Documents