Chapter 4. The implications of being a “problem” elephant
p. 83-100
Texte intégral
Introduction
1This chapter begins by an electric fence, at dusk in Laikipia, Kenya. The fence has been built to prevent elephants from leaving conservancy land to eat crops on smallholder farms. We are hiding in the bush, on Mutara Conservancy, having just placed a camera trap next to the fence to see how elephants interact with it. A GPS collar on one of the elephants and reports from community scouts told us that elephants broke out here last night to raid crops. As dusk falls, a line of ten bull elephants approach the fence in a great ridge of grey. We hold our breath. They wait, standing still but kicking dust and curling their trunks above their heads, sniffing the air. Suddenly the group parts as the largest bull, a regular breaker of fences, walks towards the wires, curls his trunk over his head and pulls back the wires repeatedly with his tusks. The fence sags and the elephant carefully steps over them, leaving the conservancy where he has spent the day. One by one the others follow. They head for an isolated smallholding.
2We were stunned by the skill, strength and cooperation we saw amongst this group of elephants. But most of all, I was struck by the way that elephants do not stay in the spaces we intend them to. Humans have a tendency to create space and place to control human-animal interactions and to define them with boundaries. Philo & Wilbert (2000: 14) articulate this distinction as “animal spaces” (set apart from intensive human occupation where wild animals are expected as rightful occupants) and “beastly places” (where animals transgress human spatial orderings and trespass into spaces intended for human occupation, injecting “their own agency into the scene” and creating places “reflective of their own ‘beastly’ ways”). Here, we explore how individual elephants transgress their animal spaces in Laikipia, through the breaking of an electrified fence built to stop them, and move into the beastly places they create as they eat people’s crops and move through farmland at night (Evans & Adams, 2018).
3The most intractable conservation conflicts (Redpath et al., 2015) in Africa are associated with the African elephant, Loxodonta africana. They encompass the range of negative interactions that occur between people and elephants sharing a landscape, including damage to crops, property, livestock, risk to human life, and the retaliatory killings of elephants (Mariki et al., 2015). On the ground, these conflicts are between those who protect elephants—namely wildlife authorities, landowners, wildlife managers, conservation NGOs—and those who experience the cost, and little benefit, from the presence of elephants.
4African elephants are subjects of global concern. They have iconic status. Their conservation is enmeshed with the issue of poaching for ivory and framed within global discourses of extinction, crisis and a new militarisation (Duffy, 2014; Lunstrum, 2014). It is also embedded in discourse of animal rights and welfare because of their sagacity and capacity for care, social bonds, memory and grief (McComb et al., 2000; Hart et al., 2008; Douglas-Hamilton et al., 2006). African elephants, therefore, create a cosmopolitan convergence of diverse stakeholders and ideologies (Barua, 2014 a).
5The generic literature on African elephant conservation conflicts is ecological. Elephants demonstrate patterns in how they raid crops in space and time. Crop-raiding usually occurs when crops are mature (Osborn, 2004; Chiyo et al., 2005), at night when human presence is low (Graham et al., 2009), close to water, human settlement and elephant refuges (Sitati et al., 2003; Graham et al., 2010). Elephants navigate smallholders in a way that minimises risk and maximises opportunity for themselves (Evans & Adams, 2018).
6In this chapter, however, we examine elephant conservation conflicts as an issue of individuals, that are not carried out by all elephants randomly, but by specific elephants choosing to live, eat and behave in specific places, in specific ways. Male elephants crop-raid more frequently than females (Chiyo et al., 2005; Hoare, 2015): their behaviour is thought to be unpredictable and more risky because of the selection pressure on them, which favours a risky strategy to derive better nutrition from crops (Hoare, 1999). Crop-raiding elephants tend to be larger in body size than non-raiders (Chiyo et al., 2011 a). Furthermore, it is specific individual elephants who carry out most crop-raiding (Chiyo et al., 2011 b; Hoare, 2015).
7Swan and colleagues (2017: 519) define a problem animal as “any individual animal that is responsible for a disproportionately large negative impact on human interests”. Here, we examine the concept, behaviour and implications of being a “problem” elephant. We ask what are the implications of the individuality of elephant behaviour and the individualisation of elephants by people for their conservation? To answer this, we draw on 15 years’ worth of interdisciplinary data from conservation research and practice in Laikipia.
Laikipia
8Laikipia is a dry plateau in north-central Kenya (Figure 1). The area (9,800 km2) is part of the Ewaso ecosystem that is home to the second largest elephant population in Kenya after Tsavo. It holds an estimated 4,475 elephants and is a growing population (Waweru et al., 2021).
9Some residents and users of Laikipia have interwoven and enmeshed histories with elephants. There is a Samburu1 legend that elephants once lived in people’s homes and worked closely with women (Kuriyan, 2002). In Samburu culture, people respect the deceased by placing green branches of trees onto their graves and do the same when they see elephant remains (ibid.). The colonial government laid the roots of a centralised wildlife policy in Kenya (Kabiri, 2010). Pastoralists, including the Samburu, were seen by the government as “wayward” and “backward” and in need of “modernisation” (Homewood, 2005). Enmeshed histories with elephants became othered by the state. Elephants were conceptually placed by people in protected areas where they could generate revenue through tourism and not cause damage to cultivation or pose a risk to people. Increasingly these protected areas have been demarcated with electric fences. After independence in 1963, Kenya saw further centralisation of the control of wildlife and the growing power of other external non-state actors, namely conservation organisations, in wildlife governance (Kabiri, 2010).
10Five events in Laikipia’s history have shaped the context of this research. First, during the British colonisation of Kenya, Laikipia was carved into large ranches, owned by European settlers, and used to produce cattle for export. Second, after independence in 1963, many European ranchers left, and their ranches were bought and subdivided into small plots owned by smallholders and used for cultivation (Kohler, 1987). However, some ranches remained: creating a chaotic juxtaposed mosaic of land use and tenure (Figure 2). Third, during the poaching crisis of the 1970s, elephants moved from the north of Kenya into the safety of the remaining ranches in Laikipia (Thouless, 1992). Laikipia’s elephant population grew along with the number of smallholders. Elephant conservation conflicts became intolerable for smallholders as elephants living in neighbouring ranches destroyed their crops (ibid.). Fourth, conservation developed as a land use on some ranches and they became conservancies, many with high-end, low-volume tourism (LWF, 2012). Fifth, the government, NGOs, and landowners decided that the solution to this conflict was an electrified fence that would trace the borders of ranches/conservancies and divide the entire county into a place for elephants and a place for cultivation (Thouless et al., 2002). It was completed in 2008 and called the West Laikipia Fence. The fence was, from its conception, political (Evans and Adams, 2016). One journalist claimed that it would “split the country into two unequal parts”, dividing the “haves” who benefit from conservation and the “have nots” who don’t (Mbaria, 2006).
Defining the “problem”: individualizing elephants
11Once built, elephants soon learned to break the West Laikipia Fence to raid crops on the other side, particularly the 32 km section built along Mutara Ranch (Figure 3). This chapter will focus on this length of fence. The authors, working with international conservation NGO Space for Giants2 and the University of Cambridge, was monitoring the behaviour of elephants that crop-raided and noticed that it seemed to be certain elephants carrying out the bulk of fence breaks. Joseph Wahome was Space for Giants’ elephant tracker. He was trained in the identification of individual elephants by the Amboseli Trust for Elephants using unique features such as ear patterns (Kangwana, 1996) and equipped with a digital camera, a GPS and a motorbike. Responding to reports from scouts, he travelled to the site of reported fence-breaks and carefully observed and photographed elephants breaking in by day, or went to the site of breaks to track the footprints of elephants to where they had crop-raided the night before. He recorded any known individuals seen. For any unknown individuals, he recorded their distinct features and entered them into a database.
12Wahome named the bulls he identified. He chose names of characters of obvious power or religious significance (e.g., Abe Lincoln, Nelson, Dedan, Tyson, Ishmael3), reflecting the reverence that he held for these elephants. He once told us that he only dreams at night of elephants; he said, “I think I am becoming an elephant”. Based on Wahome’s identification data, Space for Giants then put GPS collars on those elephants who were identified in the most fence-breaks (Douglas-Hamilton, 1998). The collars transmitted each elephant’s location every hour via satellite to an online database that allowed analysis of its movements.
13In 2012 Wahome’s observations showed that three bulls were involved in over 67% of all fence-breaks observed. Ishmael, Nelson and Ananais were all old, large bulls (between 35-40 years old). Wahome placed infrared camera traps along sections of fence reported as frequently broken. Their footage and stills showed a distinct “breaker” (Figure 4) that carried out the break whilst the rest of the group waited. Once the “breaker” had broken and crossed the fence, the others followed. Ishmael or Nelson was the “breaker” in all of the films. Followers tended to be younger and smaller bulls.
14Once fence-breaking elephants were identified, they were talked about by people in a way that captured the complexity of our responses to them. Since 2010, we have interviewed smallholder farmers, pastoralists, conservancy/ranch managers, and conservationists, including the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), about these elephants. In the KWS and other conservation organisations they were called “problems”, “rogues”, or “notorious”. One conservancy manager described them as delinquents, as “gangs of bad elephants that teach each other how to do bad things...like hoodies”. A smallholder farmer called one particular elephant that frequently ate his crops a “monster”. He said, “We all know this elephant. He’s big, he leads a group of males. He breaks the fence and comes straight here when it’s late and he knows we are sleeping. Last night, I ran out with a torch making noise, but it was no use. He ran towards me. He knows that we can do nothing to stop him”.
15Yet many people, particularly in organisations centred on animal welfare, use a language of empathy: seeing these individual elephants instead as the most “intelligent” or “evolutionarily successful” males. One member of such an organisation told me: “I can call males calm, social, friendly, or not intelligent, aggressive, and dangerous, depending on what I want. They are all just words loaded in meaning...problem elephants are a problem from our perspective and that is the conservation conflict…we define the problem, and by doing so make a problem”.
16Once Wahome identified an elephant, he shared the name and physical traits of the elephant with wildlife managers, and their names began to be used locally. By individualising and naming them, they became recognisable to those experiencing and managing elephant conservation conflicts. Once collared, those named elephants became even more visible. The KWS then sought advice from Space for Giants on which fence-breaking elephants should be the target of individual management interventions. In this way, the individualisation of elephants by Space for Giants made them targets of sanction.
Managing the “problem”
17Space for Giants collared Ishmael and Nelson in 2010. A few months later the KWS de-tusked both of them. This involves the removal of two-thirds of both tusks with a chainsaw, below the nerve, when an elephant is immobilised, on the premise that it will lack the tools to break down fences (Mutinda et al., 2014). Collar data show that compared to the time period before de-tusking, elephants crossed the fence more frequently to access crops in the same period a year later and a year after that. In the two years after de-tusking, Ishmael and Nelson crossed the fence almost daily. They were also spatially loyal in where they broke the fence - Ishmael crossed two 100m sections of fence over 100 times in one year (Figure 4). In June 2013, the KWS translocated Nelson and Ishmael and ten others 200km to Meru National Park. Nelson died during the translocation. Ishmael spent all of the five months when his collar was working within Meru National Park. And his fellow translocate, Ananais, behaved similarly for the year after translocation, during which his collar was working. This may simply be due to the fact that there was not such a hard boundary between the park and smallholder land as in Laikipia. Although a park warden at the time did tell me that some uncollared translocated bulls began to associate with Meru’s oldest, largest bulls and had “taught” them how to break the fence there.
18Back in Laikipia, the year after translocation, Wahome identified bulls that had previously been recorded as following breakers, now beginning to lead fence-breaking. Wahome had identified Mweturia as being involved in 22% of breaks before the 12 bulls were translocated to Meru National Park and in 75% of breaks the year afterwards. The West Laikipia Fence soon deteriorated and lay on the ground with elephants freely walking over it. Crop-raiding crescendoed. Mweturia ate crops voraciously, until one day in February 2018 when he walked south from the West Laikipia Fence to Solio Ranch. He was translocated the day he set foot there along with 19 other elephants 700km to Tsavo West National Park after farmers had experienced relentless crop-raiding. Unconfirmed reports claimed that most of the translocated elephants died en route.
19Mweturia’s collar died three months after he was moved to Tsavo West National Park. Before this, he spent 70% of his time outside of the park on land used for livestock keeping and cultivation. Back at the site of translocation near Solio, a bull elephant called Khulu remained. The year before translocation he spent 20% of his time on cropland, and in the year after this had slightly reduced to 17%. So the removal of 19 co-“problem” elephants did not have a significant impact on Khulu’s crop-foraging behaviour. Crop-raiding continued despite fence-breakers having been removed in both translocations—they were replaced by a pool of followers.
Good fences make good neighbours?
20The West Laikipia Fence, having laid in tatters for three years, was upgraded by Space for Giants and the Laikipia County Government from a tall six-foot design to a short design, a shorter 20 km, and an easier to maintain alignment (Figure 5) with protected posts and wires. Space for Giants had shown this to be the most effective design in deterring elephants because elephants have less purchase to break it. The upgrade of the Mutara fence was finished at the end of 2017. At first, elephants seemed bemused by the new design. Camera trap footage shows a group of bull elephants standing very still at the fence line, exploring it with their trunks. They did this for nine hours.
21Yet within eight days of the Mutara fence being complete, a collared elephant called Naledi learned to break through gates put in place to allow livestock to pass. Space for Giants then electrified the gates. It took 29 days for an elephant to learn to break the wires of the short fence and cross once more into smallholder land. Since the completion of the upgrade, from December 2017 to June 2021 the Mutara fence has been broken 55 times.
22By March 2021 the whole West Laikipia Fence had been upgraded. Yet many elephants remained on the “wrong” side of the fence4. The KWS and Space for Giants wanted to get all elephants on the right side of the fence. With two helicopters and cars, they drove 49 elephants through a section of fence that had been opened. The scene was chaos for the elephants. A loud helicopter hovered above their heads, diving lower to move them over the fence, while three cars drove close to them, pushing them forwards. Tails up they ran. Females panicked as they got separated from their calves. Two bulls tried to attack the cars that followed them. The fence was closed behind them after they crossed.
23However, two days later, the collared elephant Tumaini moved northwards to a length of fence that had the old tall design in a neighbouring privately owned cattle ranch and broke out onto smallholder land. Yet, for another collared elephant Imara, the newly upgraded fence posed a significant challenge. Imara stayed within 20 km of the fence for close to two months, having been driven across the fence. Until one day in May 2021, when a group of pastoralists damaged the fence by lifting it with sticks to enter the conservancy with their cattle, reducing the fence voltage, where Imara then broke to join Tumaini.
24The evolution of the West Laikipia Fence, and elephant behaviour in response to it, has shown that, first, well-designed and maintained fences can reduce elephant conservation conflicts considerably: in 2012 the West Laikipia Fence at Mutara was broken 490 times, in 2020 it was broken nine times. Second, despite this, certain individual elephants learned to circumvent the fence. Thouless & Sakwa (1995) describe an “arms race” between elephants and wildlife managers as elephants adapt to fence features. However, the upgraded West Laikipia Fence is as sophisticated a design as possible. The only option in an arms race is to build a parallel fence (which has happened on some conservancies in Laikipia). This leaves limited options for wildlife managers to further “manage” these individuals. Third, the upgraded fence not only prevents transgressions but also draws further attention to those elephants who are still willing and able to break it and, in doing so, solidifying them as “problems”.
“Problem elephant control”: the elephant in the room
25Despite de-tusking, translocation, fence upgrading and an elephant drive, certain individual elephants continue to re-assert cropland as a “beastly place”. This pushes the KWS to face the last resort: the taboo subject of “problem elephant control”. In Kenya, before the poaching crisis in 2010, “problem” elephants were frequently shot, often to appease the affected community. Studies have suggested that shooting “problem” elephants not only removes the problem cheaply, but creates a “barrier of fear” by the trauma caused for other elephants (Thouless & Sakwa, 1995). Often the elephant’s carcass is left at the fence line as a deterrent.
26Ol Pejeta Conservancy lies just south of the West Laikipia Fence. After repeated crop-raiding and outrage from farmers living next to the conservancy, the KWS and Ol Pejeta shot seven fence-breaking elephants between 2005-2010 to reduce conflict. They reported a considerable reduction in fence-breaking each time an elephant was shot, but over time fence-breaking increased to previous levels. Risk-taking behaviour, therefore, seems to be an ecological niche in bull elephant society that will always be filled. This means that “problem” elephants would need to be shot on an ongoing basis to actively select against risk-taking males in the population. Yet this strategy is not palatable politically and ethically to many groups concerned with animal welfare—including the KWS.
27Animal rights groups have had considerable power and influence over the Kenyan government (Kabiri, 2010). We talked with a senior KWS official who was frustrated at the government’s position when individual elephants were destroying the lives and livelihoods of rural Kenyans. He told me that “it is very rare that the Cabinet Secretary should make a decision that an elephant should die...this is because of global activism: people internationally don’t want to see an elephant getting killed”. He asked, “why do we jail a rapist or murderer or criminal? We do it to remove them from society. But if an elephant kills a young boy in Dol Dol why doesn’t that go global?”
Conclusions
28Elephants are lively and powerful actors in Laikipia: moving across boundaries set by fraught and contested histories (Barua, 2014 b; Evans & Adams, 2018; Lorimer, 2010). Certain individual elephants are determined to maintain the landscape as a shared space, whatever the wishes and actions of their human protagonists (Evans & Adams, 2018). That means that these risk-taking elephants and people will continue to mix in the same landscapes, with all the problems this implies.
29This examination of the implications of being a “problem” elephant in Laikipia creates the following insights into understanding the complex entanglement of human and elephant lives. First, humans help to define the “problem” by individualising elephants and focusing attention on them from those managing and living with elephants. By recognising them as participants in elephant conservation conflicts and subsequently individualising them, conservationists make these elephants targets of sanction.
30Second, “problem” elephants are, in effect, the ones in the room, the ones that are hard to discuss, the ones that create confusion and contradictions. Through interventions intended to manage their problematic behaviour, these elephants embody a convergence of contradictory ethical positions surrounding the value placed on human and nonhuman life and raise a number of critical questions for their conservation. For example, from a humanitarian perspective, how can people live alongside elephants that eat their crops in a fraught landscape where those experiencing the costs of elephants receive little benefit from their conservation? Instead, should those emboldened, destructive risk-taking males be shot and selected out of a population to make elephants more compatible as a species that can co-exist with humans? From an animal welfare perspective, interventions that focus on the individual elephant are undoubtedly traumatic for elephants and questionably futile if such individuals continue to break fences and eat crops.
31Third, elephants are too vibrant and awkward to conform to the “binary spatial logic” of orthodox land use planning (Lorimer, 2010: 500). Protected areas as currently conceived are too small to accommodate significant numbers of elephants and too rigidly conceived to accommodate their need to move (Evans & Adams, 2018). A more dynamic and resilient conception of animal spaces is needed to accommodate elephant agency (Bengtsson et al., 2003). The management of elephant conservation conflicts and particularly of risk-taking elephants that do not adhere to our spatial logic will have to be less narrowly technical, taking account of the unique social and political context of the shared landscape and the agency, individuality, and subjectivity of elephants (Evans & Adams, 2018).
32Fourth, ultimately elephant conservation conflicts are defined by people’s tolerance of elephants and the impact they have on their lives. If conservation could work with people to build their tolerance of a few persistent elephants with a predilection for crops, perhaps elephants and people could share space and a future in Africa. Policy interventions such as compensation, land-use planning, and the de-centralisation of wildlife governance and management, have been touted and used as ways to level out this tolerance. Compensation for elephant conservation conflicts, however, has arguably never been effectively implemented (see Hoare, 2015). Longer-term strategies such as land-use planning and the de-centralisation of decision-making relating to wildlife are far more difficult to implement but ultimately more successful than trying to impose a strategy of people constantly fighting politically against the presence of elephants (ibid.).
Bibliographie
Des DOI sont automatiquement ajoutés aux références bibliographiques par Bilbo, l’outil d’annotation bibliographique d’OpenEdition. Ces références bibliographiques peuvent être téléchargées dans les formats APA, Chicago et MLA.
Format
- APA
- Chicago
- MLA
Barua M., 2014 a – Circulating elephants: Unpacking the geographies of a cosmopolitan animal. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 39: 559-573. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12047
10.1111/tran.12047 :Barua M., 2014 b – Bio-geo-graphy: Landscape, dwelling, and the political ecology of human-elephant relations. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32: 915-934. https://doi.org/10.1068%2Fd4213
Bengtsson J., Angelstam P., Elmqvist T., Emanuelsson U., Folke C., Ihse M., Nystram M., 2003 – Reserves, resilience and dynamic landscapes. Ambio, 32: 389-396. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-32.6.389
10.1579/0044-7447-32.6.389 :Chiyo P., Cochrane E., Naughton L., Basuta G., 2005 – Temporal patterns of crop-raiding by elephants: a response to changes in forage quality or crop availability? African Journal of Ecology, 43 (1): 48-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2004.00544.x
10.1111/j.1365-2028.2004.00544.x :Chiyo P., Lee P., Moss C., Archie E., Hollister-Smith J., Alberts S., 2011 a – No risk, no gain: effects of crop raiding and genetic diversity on body size in male elephants. Behavioral Ecology, 22 (3): 552-558. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arr016
10.1093/beheco/arr016 :Chiyo P. I., Moss C. J., Archie E. A., Hollister-Smith J. A., Alberts S., 2011 b – Using molecular and observational techniques to estimate the number and raiding patterns of crop-raiding elephants. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48: 788-796. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.01967.x
10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.01967.x :Douglas-Hamilton I., 1998 – Tracking African elephants with a global positioning system (GPS) radio collar. Pachyderm, 25: 81-92.
Douglas-Hamilton I., Bhalla S., Wittemyer G., Vollrath F., 2006 – Behavioural reactions of elephants towards a dying and deceased matriarch. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 100: 87-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.014
10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.014 :Duffy R., 2014 – Waging a war to save biodiversity: the rise of militarized conservation. International Affairs, 90 (4): 819-834. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12142
10.1111/1468-2346.12142 :Evans L., Adams W., 2016 – Fencing elephants: The hidden politics of wildlife fencing in Laikipia, Kenya. Land Use Policy, 51: 215-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.11.008
10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.11.008 :Evans L., Adams W., 2018 – Elephants as actors in the political ecology of human–elephant conflict. Transactions of the British Institute of Geographers, 43 (4): 630-645. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12242
10.1111/tran.12242 :Graham M., Douglas-Hamilton I., Adams W., Lee P., 2009 – The movement of African elephants in a human-dominated land-use mosaic. Animal Conservation, 12 (5): 445-455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00272.x
10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00272.x :Graham M., Notter B., Adams W., Lee P., Ochieng T., 2010 – Patterns of crop-raiding by elephants, Loxodonta africana, in Laikipia, Kenya, and the management of human-elephant conflict. Systematics and Biodiversity, 8 (4): 435-445. https://doi.org/10.1080/14772000.2010.533716
10.1080/14772000.2010.533716 :Hart B., Hart L., Pinter-Wollman N., 2008 – Large brains and cognition: Where do elephants fit in? Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 32: 86-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.05.012
10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.05.012 :Hoare R., 1999 – Determinants of human-elephant conflict in a land-use mosaic. Journal of Applied Ecology, 36 (5): 689-700. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.1999.00437.x
10.1046/j.1365-2664.1999.00437.x :Hoare R., 2015 – Lessons From 20 Years of Human–Elephant Conflict Mitigation in Africa. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 20: 289-295. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2015.1005855
10.1080/10871209.2015.1005855 :Homewood K., 2005 – « Conclusion. Rural Resources, Local Livelihoods and Poverty Concepts ». In Homewood K. (ed.): Rural Resources and Local Livelihoods in Africa, Oxford, UK, James Currey: 198-205.
10.1007/978-1-137-06615-2 :Kabiri N., 2010 – « Historic and contemporary struggles for a local wildlife governance regime in Kenya ». In Nelson F. (ed.): Community rights, conservation and contested land: the politics of natural resources governance in Africa, London, Earthscan: 121-145.
Kangwana K., 1996 – Studying Elephants. Handbooks on Techniques in African wildlife ecology. Nairobi, Kenya, African Wildlife Ecology.
Kohler T., 1987 – Land use in Transition. Aspects and problems of small-scale farming in a new environment: the example of Laikipia District, Kenya. Geographica Bernensia African Study Series A5, 122 p.
Kuryian R., 2002 – Linking Local Perceptions of Elephants and Conservation: Samburu Pastoralists in Northern Kenya. Society and Natural Resources, 15: 949-957. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920290107675
10.1080/08941920290107675 :Lorimer J., 2010 – Elephants as companion species: The lively biogeographies of Asian elephant conservation in Sri Lanka. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 35: 491-506.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2010.00395.x
10.1111/j.1475-5661.2010.00395.x :Lunstrum E., 2014 – Green militarization: Anti-poaching efforts and the spatial contours of Kruger National Park. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104 (4): 816-832. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2014.912545
10.1080/00045608.2014.912545 :LWF (Laikipia Wildlife Forum), 2012 – A Wildlife Conservation Strategy for Laikipia County. Nanyuki, Kenya, M. Graham.
Mariki S., Svarstad H., Benjaminsen T., 2015 – Elephants over the cliff: explaining wildlife killings in Tanzania. Land Use Policy, 44: 19-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.10.018
10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.10.018 :Mbaria J., 2006 – The haves and have nots. The East African, Nairobi, Kenya, The Nation Media Group.
McComb K., Moss C., Sayailel S., Baker L., 2000 – Unusually extensive networks of vocal recognition in African elephants. Animal Behaviour, 59: 1103-1109. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2000.1406
10.1006/anbe.2000.1406 :Mutinda M., Chenge G., Gakuya F., Otiende M., Omondi P., Kasiki S., Soriguer R. C., Alasaad S., 2014 – Detusking Fence-Breaker Elephants as an Approach in Human-Elephant Conflict Mitigation. Plos One, 9 (3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091749
10.1371/journal.pone.0091749 :Osborn F. V., 2004 – Seasonal variation of feeding patterns and food selection by crop-raiding elephants in Zimbabwe. African Journal of Ecology, 42: 322-327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2004.00531.x
10.1111/j.1365-2028.2004.00531.x :Philo C., Wilbert, C., 2000 – « Animal spaces, beastly places: an intro-duction ». In Philo C.,Wilbert C. (eds.): Animal spaces, beastly places: New geographies of human-animal relations, London, UK, Routledge: 1-34.
Redpath S., Bhata S., Young J., 2015 – Tilting at wildlife: Reconsidering human–wildlife conflict. Oryx, 49: 222-225. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605314000799
10.1017/S0030605314000799 :Sitati N., Walpole M., Smith R., Leader-Williams N., 2003 – Predicting spatial aspects of human-elephant conflict. Journal of Applied Ecology, 40 (4): 667-677. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2003.00828.x
10.1046/j.1365-2664.2003.00828.x :Taylor N., 2012 – « Animals, mess and method: Post-humanism, sociology and animal studies ». In Birke L., Hockenhull J. (eds.): Crossing boundaries: Investigating human-animal relationships, Leiden, the Netherlands, Brill: 37-50.
Thouless C., 1992 – Electric fencing around Ol Pejeta Ranch. Laikipia Elephant Project.
Thouless C., Sakwa J., 1995 – Shocking elephants - fences and crop raiders in Laikipia District, Kenya. Biological Conservation, 72 (1): 99-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(94)00071-W
10.1016/0006-3207(94)00071-W :Thouless C., Georgiadis N., Olwero N., 2002 – A Wildlife Fencing Strategy for Laikipia. Nanyuki, Kenya, Laikipia Wildlife Forum.
Swan G., Redpath S, Bearhop S., MacDonald R., 2017 – Ecology of problem individuals and the efficacy of selective wildlife management. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 32 (7): 518-530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.03.011
10.1016/j.tree.2017.03.011 :Waweru J., Omondi P., Ngene S., Mukeka J., Wanyonyi E., Ngoru B., Mwiu S., Mutet D., Lala F., Kariuki L., Ihwagi F., Kiambi S., Khyale C., Bundotich G., Omengo F., Hongo P., Maina P., Muchiri F., Omar M., Nyunja J., Edebe J., Mathenge J., Anyona G., Ngesa C., Gathua J., Njino L., Njenga G., Wandera A., Mutisya S., Njeri R., Kimanzi D., Imboma T., Wambugu J., Mwinami T., Kaka A., Kanga E., 2021 – National Wildlife Census 2021 Report. Ministry of Wildlife and Tourism (Kenya)/Wildlife Research and Training Institute (WRTI)/Kenya Wildlife Service.
Notes de bas de page
1 One of Laikipia’s predominant ethnic groups, with origins to the north of Laikipia.
2 Based in Laikipia Kenya (www.spaceforgiants.org).
3 After Abraham Lincoln (US President), Admiral Nelson (British naval hero), Dedan Kimathi (Mau Mau leader), Mike Tyson (boxer), Ishmael (biblical son of Abraham).
4 Partly because of elephants moving through gaps in the fence, and also because of the conflict between conservancies and pastoralists in 2017 which saw the destruction of Kifuku ranch’s external fence and infrastructure. Kifuku ranch then became a refuge for elephants, used as a base from which to crop-raid.
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Composing Worlds with Elephants
Interdisciplinary dialogues
Nicolas Lainé, Paul G. Keil et Khatijah Rahmat (dir.)
2023
Voix végétales
Diversité, résistances et histoires de la forêt
Joana Cabral de Oliveira, Marta Amoroso, Ana Gabriela Morim de Lima et al. (dir.) Michel Riaudel (trad.)
2023