Using Conservation Agriculture to help reduce Human-Elephant Conflict

1. Using Conservation Agriculture to help reduce Human-Elephant Conflict Okavango Elephants & People Anna Songhurst

2. OkavangoDelta Panhandle Project Area

3. Background Elephant range expansion + Human population increase + Land use change = Competition between elephants & people

4. Types of Human-Elephant Conflict People Putting Fields in Elephant Pathways Fence Damage Crop Damage Injury & Killing of people Elephant Impact on Vegetation Killing of Elephants

5. Impact of Elephant Crop-Raiding Actual Damage • Over 19,000ha of land is cultivated in the eastern panhandle • The average field size is 3.2ha • 1040 fields were raided by elephants between 2008-2010 (~5% of total fields) • Over 25% of fields raided had more than 10% of crops damaged Perceived Conflict • Perception of conflict is far higher than actual measurable damage • Average quantity of cereal crop harvested per field is 499kg (155kg/ha) • A field can support 1-34 people (average 7)

6. Using Conservation Agriculture to reduce impacts of elephant crop-raiding • Smaller fields are easier to protect using mitigation measures - CA techniques reduce field size without reducing harvest yields • Improved yields will make farmers less vulnerable to the effects of crop raiding - CA can increase yields • More permanent fields will assist with land use planning, fields can be positioned away from main elephant movement routes - CA can help to maintain soil quality through use of manure, fertilizers, crop rotation , legumes etc.

7. Project Activities • A total of 25 people were trained in Conservation Agriculture (CA) techniques from 4 villages in the eastern panhandle (Mohembo –East, Sekondomboro, Ngarange, Tobera) and one village in the western panhandle (Samochima) in 2010-2011 • The trainings were conducted by Chrispin Miyanda and Carol Murphy from Zambia, with assistance from 2 CA farmers from Imusho, Zambia. Theory Training

8. Practical Training Basin Preparation Mulching

9. Project Activities cont. • Necessary equipment for CA techniques were distributed to farmers (i.e. Hoe, string, bucket etc.) • A farmer manual was designed and distributed to farmers • Community enumerators were trained and deployed to encourage farmers to implement techniques and monitor successes and shortfalls during the following crop season • The same farmers were also trained in chilli deterrent methods, to encourage a combination of CA and chilli deterrents

10. Project Outcomes • Unfortunately, only a small number of farmers (2%) tried to implement the conservation agriculture techniques in 2010-2011. • Most farmers explained that they did not have enough time to trial these techniques, while others said the techniques were too hard to implement. • Some farmers did not want to be “taught how to farm” and are happy with their traditional techniques. • Those that did implement found the implementation difficult and time consuming, but felt that the training instructions were clear and they had enough equipment supplied. • Some of the farmers who did not try CA in 2010-2011 said they would try it in 2011-2012 and start preparations earlier. However, no farmers practised CA this year

11. Way Forward • Results demonstration plots will be established within peoples fields • Concentrate efforts on a few farmers who could become lead farmers in the area • Explain more clearly how CA can be used as a tool to reduce HEC – motivate people • Once people can see how CA can benefit them through gaining higher yields from smaller areas of land and consequently being able to implement more efficient HEC mitigation on smaller CA fields, we believe more people will be keen to start practising such techniques.