Research Article |
Corresponding author: Sujan Henkanaththegedara ( henkanaththegedarasm@longwood.edu ) Academic editor: Mark Auliya
© 2020 T. G. Supun Lahiru Prakash, W. A. A. D. Upul Indrajith, A. M. C. P. Aththanayaka, Suranjan Karunarathna, Madhava Botejue, Vincent Nijman, Sujan Henkanaththegedara.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Prakash TGSL, Indrajith WAADU, Aththanayaka AMCP, Karunarathna S, Botejue M, Nijman V, Henkanaththegedara S (2020) Illegal capture and internal trade of wild Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in Sri Lanka. Nature Conservation 42: 51-69. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.42.57283
|
The illegal wildlife trade is considered one of the major threats to global biodiversity. Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) have been highly valued by various cultures for use in religious and spiritual contexts, as a draft animal, and more recently, as a tourist attraction. Thus, the demand for captive elephants is high. Wild Asian elephants are taken from the wild, often illegally, to maintain these captive populations due to the unviability of captive breeding programs. For the first time, we documented the extent to which wild elephants are being illegally captured and traded in Sri Lanka between January 2008 and December 2018. We collected data from case records maintained by the Sri Lanka court system where the suspects of illegal elephant trade were prosecuted in addition to information gathered by archives and interviews with various stakeholders. We documented 55 cases where elephants were illegally traded. This is probably an underestimate due to the mortality rate of elephants during capture operations, and challenges in collecting data on this highly organized illicit trade. Nearly equal numbers of male and female elephants were traded and more than 50% of them were juveniles, aged ≤5 years. Significantly more elephants were found to be seized in 2014–2015 than in the other time periods combined. We found evidence of the illegal capture of wild elephants from wildlife protected areas and state forests. More importantly, we identified evidence of corruption of wildlife officers, involvement of politicians and other high-ranking personnel in the illegal wildlife trade, and lack of active enforcement of wildlife law as major challenges to overcome if the illegal capture and domestic trade of wild elephants in Sri Lanka are to be halted. Based on our study, we make a series of recommendations that should result in implementing policy to reduce the trafficking of Asian elephants in Sri Lanka and improve the conservation management of the species.
Asian elephant, endangered species, illegal trade, national parks, wildlife crimes, wildlife trafficking
The wildlife trade is one of the most profitable multi-billion dollar enterprises, involving direct exploitation of wild plants, animals, other organisms and their derivatives (
Wildlife trade is considered a major threat to global biodiversity (
Throughout their centuries-long history across Asia, Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) have been revered and closely connected to, and highly valued by, various cultures for use in religious and spiritual contexts, as draft animals and, more recently, as a tourist attraction (
While habitat loss and fragmentation have been historically considered the key driving forces of population decline of Asian elephants, in recent decades, human-wildlife conflict has intensified (
Throughout their natural range, the numbers of captive elephants are decreasing along with their role as draft animals, increasingly being replaced by machinery. However, their use in tourism is on the increase and may sustain the demand for captive elephants. Efforts to breed Asian elephants in captivity appear to be lagging behind with the noteworthy exception of the Pinnawala Elephant Orphanage in Sri Lanka (
The illicit trade of wild-caught Asian elephants is prominent in several nations in Asia, particularly in Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, India, and Sri Lanka (
Although appreciable numbers of studies have been conducted elsewhere in Asia, no comprehensive studies have been done on the illegal live wild elephant trade in Sri Lanka. In this study, we document the extent to which elephants were being illegally captured in the wild between January 2008 and December 2018, and present information on biometrics of smuggled elephants, an analysis of legal documentation process (and the violations) together with information on capturing and trafficking methods, source areas, trade routes, stakeholders involved, and the market value of live Asian elephants in Sri Lanka using best-available data. We expect this information to be used in implementing policy to reduce the trafficking of Asian elephants and conservation management of the species.
This study was conducted using both quantitative and qualitative data covering the entire country of Sri Lanka. The data for this study was mainly generated through case records maintained by the Sri Lanka courts system where the suspects of illegal elephant trade were prosecuted. Thirty-nine criminal proceedings filed before 15 Magistrate Courts by the Department of Wildlife Conservation of Sri Lanka (DWC) and Crime Investigation Division (CID) of Police Department of Sri Lanka were utilized in this study. A variety of other reliable sources were also used that documented the elephant trade in Sri Lanka. These include reports of three committees appointed by the line ministry of wildlife conservation between 2014 and 2018 to investigate the illegal live wild elephant trade, queries of information for clarification made by Auditor Generals’ Department of Sri Lanka, and investigative reports and newspaper articles by environment activists and journalists. Interviews with 23 stakeholders (i.e. field DWC officers, investigative journalists, environmental activists, animal welfare activists, environmental lawyers, key informants, elephant owners, mahouts, and suspects) were also employed in data collection, specifically on major source areas for elephants, methods of live capture, transportation of captured elephants and trade routes.
We have deemed the elephants to be suspected smuggled elephants when legal proceedings were instituted or conducted by the authorized institutions against the respective suspects under the provisions of the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance No. 2 of 1937 and/or the Public Property Act No. 12 of 1982 with seizing the elephants (N = 39;
Some illegally captured Asian elephants (Elephas maximus maximus) in Sri Lanka: A a male, 2–3 years old juvenile (Gōnaganāra 2) seized in 2017 from Monaragala District B a male, 3–4 years old juvenile (Hamu) seized in 2014 from Gampaha District ©Nadika Hapuarachchi C a sub-adult, 6–7 years old (Gōnaganāra 1) seized in 2016 from Monaragala District D a female, less than 1 year old calf (Hambegamuwa) seized in 2016 from Monaragala District E unsexed, and unaged individual seized in 2014 from Kurunegala District F a male, 6–7 years old sub-adult (Sahayoga) seized in 2014 from Colombo District.
We used the average of estimated age range for analysis (e.g. estimated age of 3 or 4 years was calculated as 3.5 years). The life stages of elephants were categorized according to the following criteria: calves (≤1 year old), juveniles (2–5 years old), sub-adults (6–10 years old), and adults (≥11 years old). We analyzed temporal patterns in the trade in 2-year periods, beginning in 2008, using χ2 tests, and differences between reported ages in the registration documents and estimated ages by veterinarians with a Mann-Whitney U test. We accepted significance when P < 0.05 in a two-tailed test (
We found records of 55 cases of suspected smuggled elephants. Forty-six (83.6%) of those elephants had an identity reported with a name. Twenty-four (43.6%) elephants were females and 23 (41.8%) were males, while the sex of eight elephants (14.5%) was not reported. Two elephants (3.6%) were identified as calves (≤1 years old), 14 (25.4%) as juveniles (2–5 years old), 29 (52.7%) as sub-adults (6–10 years old), four (7.2%) as adults (≥11 years old) and six (10.9%) were not aged (Fig.
Only 33 (60.0%) elephants were registered while 17 (30.9%) elephants were not registered, three (5.4%) were under government letters of patent, and no information was available for two elephants (3.6%).
DWC and CID instituted 39 (70.9%) criminal proceedings before 15 Magistrate Courts against the suspects who were involved in the illegal live elephant trade in Sri Lanka. These suspected smuggled elephants were seized by the authorized institutions and kept at the Pinnawala Elephant Orphanage or Elephant Transit Home, Udawalawe. Three (7.7%) were considered smuggled elephants according to the Auditor General’s department observation, 10 (25.6%) were considered smuggled elephants as irregularities were found in the registration documents during the CID investigations, and 11 (28.2%) were smuggled elephants according to the Auditor General’s Department observation (with additional irregularities in registration documents as revealed by the CID investigations). Furthermore, CID was investigating five other cases, but elephants were not yet seized. Of these five, one is a smuggled elephant as irregularities have been found in registration documents during the CID investigations. One of these suspected smuggled elephants was voluntarily handed over to the Pinnawala Elephant Orphanage by the owner during the investigation (Table
Category | Total number of elephants | Remarks (N = number of cases) |
---|---|---|
The case is being heard | 39 | Smuggled elephant according to the Auditor General’s Department observations (N = 3) |
Irregularities have been found in registration documents during the CID investigations (N = 10) | ||
Smuggled elephant according to the Auditor General’s Department observations. Irregularities have been found in registration documents during the CID investigations (N = 11) | ||
No such information is available (N = 15) | ||
Data on legal proceedings not available | 11 | Disclosed by the DWC from urban areas (N = 3) Seized by the DWC from wildernesses (N = 8) |
CID investigations without seizing the elephant | 5 | Irregularities have been found in registration documents during the CID investigations (N = 1) |
Handed over to the Pinnawala Elephant Orphanage (N = 1) | ||
No such information is available (N = 3) | ||
Total | 55 |
Three elephants were disclosed by the DWC and environmental activists from urban areas in Sri Lanka during the early phase of this study (
The discrepancies between the reported age in the registration documents and the estimated age of elephants by the veterinarians of the DWC suggest some irregularities in the elephant registration process. We found information about potential corruption at DWC from reports of committees appointed by the line ministry of wildlife conservation between 2014 and 2018 and queries of information for clarification made by Auditor Generals’ Department of Sri Lanka to investigate the illegal live wild elephant trade (see
Elephant seizures were reported from eleven administrative districts of Sri Lanka with the highest number of seizures being reported from Colombo district (16 cases; 31.4%; Fig.
Spatial distribution of seized locations of Asian elephants from 13 districts of Sri Lanka (filled circles) overlaid on the distribution of wild Asian elephants in Sri Lanka (orange shade; after
Through interviews with field DWC officers and investigative journalists, we found direct photographic evidence (Fig.
Reports of committees appointed by the line ministry of wildlife conservation between 2014 and 2018 to investigate the illegal live wild elephant trade (see
Our study has shown that the illegal wild elephant trade is a major challenge for the conservation and management of endangered Asian elephants in Sri Lanka. We found at least 55 cases of illegally captured elephants from the wild in Sri Lanka during the period of January 2008–December 2018. Although it is still only about 0.1% of total Sri Lankan wild population / year (55 cases over 10 years equals 5.5 cases per year), we want to stress that our number may represent an underestimate due to two major reasons; the secretive operations of this illegal trade in Sri Lanka, and the unreported mortality rate of elephants during the capturing process, transport and in captivity. Although our data was largely based on anecdotal reports (i.e. court reports, investigation reports, media reports, and stakeholder interviews), there is a consistency between sources that gives our claims a measure of legitimacy. More importantly, we have used the best available information from multiple sources to dissect the illegal live elephant trade in Sri Lanka.
The percentage of calves and juveniles in illegal trade (29.0%) is higher than in wild populations in Sri Lanka (17.8%;
The actual number of captures of elephants from the wild could be higher due to the high mortality rate in captivity under illicit trade. Even at ETH, the mortality rate of arrivals is around 40% where an intensive care facility with close monitoring by resident veterinary surgeons and trained staff of DWC is maintained for orphaned elephants until they are fit enough to be released back into the wild (
Wild elephants are often caught in Myanmar using pit fall traps where they are corralled into pits with the aid of captive elephants (
Elephants are mainly protected by three acts of legislation and two other acts of legislation can also be utilized in combating the illegal live wild elephant trade in Sri Lanka, the authority for which has been delegated to two government Institutions (Table
Legislations and authorized government institutions related to Asian elephant conservation in Sri Lanka.
Legislation | Authorized Institutions/Persons |
---|---|
The constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka | General Public (under fundamental right jurisdiction) |
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance No.13 of 1907 | Department of Police |
Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance No. 2 of 1937 | DWC |
Department of Police | |
General Public (under section 60E) | |
Offences committed against Public property Act No. 12 of 1982 | Department of Police |
Penal Code (Amendment) Act No. 29 of 1998 | Department of Police |
The most relevant law is the FFPO as amended by Act No. 49 of 1993 and Act No. 22 of 2009 which deals with both wild and domestic elephants. DWC was established and charged with management and implementation of the Fauna and Flora Protection (Amendment) Act, No.22 of 2009. In view of provisions in Section 22A (12) of the last amendment in 2009 any elephant which has not been registered under the provision of the FFPO shall be presumed to have been taken or removed from the wild without lawful authority or approval and such elephants shall be deemed to be public property. The provisions of the Offences Against Public Property Act, No. 12 of 1982 shall accordingly apply in respect of such elephants. Furthermore, any offence committed under the Act involving an elephant shall be a non-bailable offense and the provisions of the Bail Act, No. 30 of 1997 and the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, No. 15 of 1979 shall apply in respect of such an offense (
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance No.13 of 1907 make better provision for the prevention of cruelty to all animals and these provisions can be utilized to protect elephants found in captivity suffering pain by reason of starvation, mutilation, or other ill-treatment. The Penal Code (Amendment) Act No. 29 of 1998 is also important as there is increasing evidence of false documents being used to smuggle elephants and get licenses.
In addition to national protection, international protection against live elephant trade is afforded by The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) which is a multinational agreement to which countries voluntarily join. The aim of CITES is to ensure that legal international trade does not endanger the survival of wild plants or animals. A permit system is the primary mechanism by which wildlife trade is regulated through CITES. Asian Elephants have been listed in Appendix I of CITES since its inception in 1975, generally prohibiting international trade in wild individuals and their derivatives except in exceptional circumstances. Article III.3.c of CITES allows trade in an Appendix I species if “a Management Authority of the State of import is satisfied that the specimen is not to be used for primarily commercial purposes”. Therefore, the international trade of elephants does occur on a small but regular basis in the zoo trade. Sri Lanka has been a member of CITES since 1979 (
Government officials responsible for elephant conservation in Sri Lanka, under the influence of political pressure or influenced by bribery, either avoid making an honest attempt to combat this illegal trade of wild elephants or offer only limited resistance. On several occasions, attempts were made to release the suspected smuggled elephants to the offenders with only minor penalties. For example, the Director General of DWC was pressurized by high ranking politicians to release the elephants using loopholes in the legislation and even cabinet memoranda were presented (i.e. Cabinet memorandum number 16/2204/708/017-1 and dated 04th July 2016 forwarded by the Minister of Sustainable Development and Wildlife and cabinet memorandum number PMO/CM/44/2019 dated 10th September 2019 forwarded by the Prime Minister and two Ministers), to release the elephants to the offenders.
The climax of these organized wildlife crimes in Sri Lanka can arguably be considered to have been the August 2013 misplacement of the register of captive elephants archived at the head office of DWC. As a result, the DWC and the Police Department of Sri Lanka have launched several investigations into elephant smuggling since 2014. This has also led to protests by the general public and environmental activists against this illegal trade.
Historically, the captive elephant population in Sri Lanka mainly depended on wild captures and noosing and kraaling were widely used for capturing free ranging elephants (
Meanwhile surplus demand for elephants has been created since the end of the civil war in Sri Lanka in 2009. The emergence of peace has enabled the public to engage more in religious and cultural activities. Elephants hold a central position in the country’s two main religions, Buddhism and Hinduism (
Corruption, ineffective laws, weak judicial systems, lack of enforcement of wildlife law and light sentences allow criminal networks to keep plundering wildlife with little regard for the consequences (
Domestic and wild elephants in Sri Lanka are treated under the same legislation, the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance No. 2 of 1937 (FFPO), and this is an undoubted advantage for combating the illegal live elephant trade in the country. The population of wild Asian elephants in Thailand is estimated at between 3126–3341, and about 3783 individuals belong to the Thai domestic elephant population (
In terms of impact, habitat loss associated with smuggling leads to extirpation of elephants from certain home ranges. The Sri Lankan illegal live elephant trade specifically targeted males. This can skew the sex ratio of a population toward a female bias and reduce genetic variability, fecundity and recruitment (
Based on our study, we make a series of recommendations that should result in implementing policy to reduce the trafficking of Asian elephants in Sri Lanka and to improve the conservation management of the species.
In the short term, we urge the relevant authorities and government bodies to speed up the judiciary process against suspects and penalize the offenders who smuggled the elephants from the wild for trade purposes. It goes without saying that this should happen in a fair and just manner, irrespective of the suspect’s social status, political affiliation or role in society.
If officers of the DWC are either directly or indirectly involved in the trade, including by assisting the smuggling rackets, immediate legal and/or disciplinary action should be taken. Any measures taken should be made public in order to deter those tempted by this illegal act in the future.
In the intermediate term, we urge that funds, expertise and time be made available to assist the Elephant Transit Home in the Udawalawe National Park and Pinnawala Elephant Orphanage with the smuggled elephants under their care. This assessment will help to determine whether these elephants are fit enough to be released back to the wild.
Still in the intermediate term, we urge the enactment of a national policy on captive elephants which introduces a scientific and transparent process regarding the registration and renewal of licenses to hold captive elephants. This should lead to a limit on the use of captive elephants for cultural, religious, and tourism purposes. As part of this, we urge the authorities responsible for the welfare and conservation of Asian elephants in Sri Lanka to adopt the standardized captive elephant registration protocols and best practices proposed by the Seventeenth Conference of Parties of CITES in 2016 and the second Asian Elephant Range States’ meeting in 2017. These guidelines include DNA registration, monitoring protocols for captive populations, guidelines for the management and welfare of captive elephants, disease management including zoonotic diseases, training and capacity building of staff and mahouts, and specific national policy to manage the captive elephant population to avoid illicit live elephant trade (
Our study, for the first time, has provided the best available information regarding the extent, mechanisms and the potential impacts of live wild Asian elephant smuggling in Sri Lanka. Although the numbers of smuggled elephants are relatively low compared to neighboring counties, it is very clear that smugglers have been using sophisticated methods and operate under strong networks involving corrupt wildlife officers, politicians, clergymen and even military personnel. Despite the availability of sufficient local legislation to stop these illicit activities and protect endangered Asian elephants from smuggling, the lack of active enforcement of wildlife law is hindering the progress of conservation of wild elephants in Sri Lanka.
We thank Prithiviraj Fernando, Thilina Surasinghe, Ravindranath Dabare, and Sajeewa Chamikara for their valuable advice and help, K.U.P. Dayarathna and the field staff of the DWC of Sri Lanka for their support and encouragement during the field data collections, and village officers for their help in accessing the study sites. We also thank Mark Auliya, Jan Schmidt-Burbach and W. Keith Lindsay for their helpful suggestions towards improving this manuscript. Funding: Page charges for this publication were covered by the Cook-Cole College of Arts and Sciences at Longwood University, Virginia, USA. Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.