An Investigation in to Primate Crop Raiding from

Farmland Surrounding Gongoni Forest and Buda

Forest, Kwale District, Kenya

Progress report March 2015, Diani, Kenya

For more information, references or detailed project information on Colobus Conservation activities or results, contact

Keith Thompson (General Manager) or Andrea Donaldson (Conservation Manager) at:

Colobus Conservation

P.O. Box 5380

80401 Diani Beach

Kenya

Tel/Fax: + 254 (0) 711 479453

Email: enquiries@colobusconservation.org

Web: www.colobusconservation.org

2

1. Introduction

Understanding and addressing conflict between humans and wildlife due to crop-raiding is a

crucial conservation issue [1], [2]. Crops near forest are often predictable and accessible sources of

nutrition for wildlife [3], and extensive damage through raiding can adversely impact farmer

livelihood [4], [5], compromise food security [6], reduce tolerance of wildlife [7], and undermine

management strategies [8]. Conflict mitigation requires a comprehensive record of crop-raiding

activity, including patterns of raiding, farmer and raider behaviour, crop losses, and the

parameters of raiding events [9].

The literature on crop-raiding includes many accounts of non-human primates or other animals

entering farms and raiding crops [10], [11], [12], [13]; however, these are typically indirect or

anecdotal rather than systematic observations of behaviour. There is also little empirical analysis

of which attributes of crop-raiding events (CREs) determine amount of crop loss. Although raider

age and/or sex, group size, crop-raiding experience, and distance from forest potentially influence

the extent of raiding at a farm [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], few studies quantify these or other

parameters of CREs, or confirm links to the amount of damage that occurs during a CRE. This

information is essential when developing techniques to protect crops because (i) deterrents can

be designed to address specific raiding characteristics and (ii) methods reducing damage directly

have the largest impact on yields and greatest value for farmers [19].

The effectiveness of crop-protection techniques is reflected in crop loss per unit of cost and

farmer effort [9]. Therefore, quantifying the CRE parameters that determine damage to crops also

measures deterrent efficacy. These parameters will be behavioural indices of the impact of

deterrents and are likely to include how many individuals raid, how far they travel onto a farm,

and how long they raid for. Related factors might include whether raids occur in series and/or age

composition of the raiding group. Age probably correlates with raiding experience for primates

consuming crops [3]; compared to novice raiders, primates with greater experience should access

or process crop items more efficiently, and avoid detection by farmers more frequently or for

longer durations. Parameter values may vary across species and/or circumstances, and collectively

are likely to reflect the tactics used by raiding animals.

The research will investigate the behaviour of multiple primate species to explore links between

CRE characteristics and resultant damage to crops. The parameters of CREs that determine

farmers’ losses will be identified and quantified, to better understand which aspects of raider

behaviour should be targeted by deterrents to reduce crop-raiding and manage conflict.

3

2. Methods

2.1 Study Sites

The Gongoni and Buda Forest crop raiding study is an accumulation of five phases to be conducted

upon nine villages. By the end of March 2015 phases 1-3 will either be completed or underway for

two villages, Vumbu and Mwaloya, with phase 4 and 5 due to commence in April and May.

Phase 1 – Background research – One month

Review of published reports and confer with experts in this field regarding methods trialled and

tested in other locations.

Progress: Completed August 2014 followed by finalising staff recruitment until mid September.

A full literature review is available on request, the introduction above is a one page summary.

This phase will not need to be repeated for subsequent villages and therefore requires no

further attention.

Phase 2 – Questionnaire development, surveying and identifying potential study sites - One month

(per location)

The research will be conducted at forest-agriculture interfaces around Buda and Gongoni Forest,

Kwale District, Kenya. Initial consultative meetings between Colobus Conservation and affected

groups, as identified by Base Titanium, will be held and a questionnaire survey will be conducted

on an individual basis with crop based farmer occupying land. Using the information gathered

during this phase of the research, two farms will be selected to conduct a pilot study, the selection

process will consider (a) vulnerability to crop-raiding [4], [16], [22], (b) range and distribution of

crops, and (c) farmer support for research objectives.

Progress: Completed for Vumbu and Mwaloya mid-September to mid-November 2014. Vumbu

and Mwaloya villages were selected prior to the questionnaire being conducted, their selection

was based on requests from Base Titanium personnel and ease of access for the research team.

As a result of this early selection the questionnaire survey has only been conducted in these

locations and will need to be conducted before baseline surveying can commence in subsequent

villages. A review of this survey is presented the results section.

Phase 3 – Baseline Study – Three months for first village, longer for remaining villages

The focus of the baseline study is to fully understand the mechanism of the crop raiding events

(CRE). Observations will be conducted from hidden areas that afford a continuous view of on-farm

and farm edge activity while rendering observers inconspicuous to wildlife. During this period of

baseline monitoring Colobus Conservation observers will not respond to animals entering farms

and will not disclose details of raiding activity to any people on farms. All data will be collected in

accordance with institutional ethics requirements, established ethical guidelines for social and

primate research, and with the consent and support of village councils and participating farmers.

4

A CRE is defined as when one or more individuals of one species enter a farm, interact with one or

more crop, and leave the farm. A CRE will commence when the first individual enters the farm and

end when the last individual exits; duration will be measured in seconds using digital stop-

watches. A crop is one plant, stalk, or fruit of a crop. Primate age categories will be classified as

adult (full species-sex-specific size), sub-adult (not fully grown, beyond infant development,

exhibits independent behaviour frequently), or infant (developmentally small and dependent,

carried frequently, maintains close proximity to adults).

Data will be collected using all-occurrences continuous sampling [24] and include for each CRE:

1) time and distance to nearest human when the first individual entered the farm,

2) time when each additional individual entered the farm,

3) age-category and sex of each individual,

4) farm entry point(s),

5) incidence and location(s) of crop interaction, including type(s) of crop,

6) time when each individual exited the farm,

7) time and distance to nearest human when the last individual exited the farm,

8) farm exit point(s),

9) total number of individuals entering the farm and total number remaining outside the farm,

Data regarding the behaviour of farmers and other humans on farms will also be collected using

all-occurrences continuous sampling. These data will include

1) presence or absence of humans on farms,

2) nature of on-farm human activity,

3) extent of guarding behaviour, and

4) responses to crop-raiding primates.

Crop damage will be determined by counting stems interacted with, consumed, and/or carried by

primates during CREs.

Progress: Ongoing - Baseline data collection has been conducted in Vumbu and Mwaloya

beginning in December 2014. A small delay in the schedule was observed due to the

requirements for GIS mapping of each research farm which had not been accounted for in the

original proposal and the recruitment and training of field assistants from each village. In

addition the baseline data collection period was extended due to very few crop raiding events

occurring during December or January and therefore insufficient results to analyse. Extremely

preliminary results can be viewed in the results section. These highlight considerable difference

between the perception of CRE of the farmers gained from the questionnaire and actual damage

recorded by impartial researchers.

Phase 4 – Data Analysis – Two months

Data will be entered into SPSS for analysis. Information that will be highlighted to enable Colobus

Conservation to find target solutions will include raiding species, age and sex, average duration of

5

CREs, number and group composition of raiding primates, influence of farmer behaviour and crop

preference.

Progress: Data analysis is scheduled for two months during April and May 2015. Colobus

Conservation aims to reduce this analysis to one month in an attempt to recoup time lost during

the baseline data collection phase. During the data analysis phase field assistants will remain in

the villages collecting CRE data.

Phase 5 - Mitigation development and trials – Six months

Once the data is analysed and the exact cause of the crop raiding problem is known, Colobus

Conservation will consult with experts in the field of primate crop raiding to seek potential

solutions to each specific problems.

Each potential solution will be systematically tested, this will involve implementing the solution

and repeating Phase 2 and 3 to prove if any significant reduction in CRE has occurred.

Proposal: Subject to the results of the analysis, mitigation planning and trails will begin in

May/June 2015 on two farms per village and CRE data collection will continue on all farms. By

conducting the mitigation trails and evaluations in this method data will exist for CRE's pre- and

post- mitigation trails but also with in the same time frame. Recent research has revealed the

importance of being able to evaluate mitigation techniques within exactly comparable time

periods, in addition to pre- and post- mitigation trails. For example, in the event of population

reductions or movements of the crop raiding species the mitigation trail may be deemed

successful when in fact crop raiding has reduced due to a reduction in one or more crop raiding

species.

3. Results

3.1 Questionnaire

The questionnaire survey was conducted in two villages, Vumbu and Mwaloya, during September

and October 2014. Vumbu village comprises 37 farms/household occupied by 266 people, while

Mwaloya village has 15 farms/households occupied by 101 people. Questionnaire interviews were

conducted with a representative of each farm that shared one or more boundaries with the forest.

In total 37 interviews were conducted in Vumbu, however three of these farms no longer cultivate

crops and have been excluded from this report and 10 interviews were conducted in Mwaloya. All

farmers responded to all questions.

The questionnaire survey can be viewed in appendix 1. Results presented for the purpose of this

report focus solely on crop cultivation and experiences of crop raiding. Details regarding

demographic and socio-economic background have not been reviewed in this report but are

available on request.

6

3.1.1 Crops Cultivated

Between the two villages 26 different crops are cultivated, of which 17 are cultivated by farmers in

both villages (table 3.1). On average individual farmers in Vumbu village cultivate 5.3 different

crops annually (range 2-11), while farmers in Mwaloya cultivate 6.3 different varieties of crop

annually (range 3-9). Farmers were requested to rank the crops cultivated on their farm from most

grown to least grown to enable identification of important crop types to focus mitigation efforts

on. Crops that were ranked as most grown by one or more respondents are indicated in table 3.1

with an *.

Table 3.1 Percentage of farmers cultivating each crop displayed as percentage of respondents per village.

* indicates the crop was ranked as most grown by one or more individual farmers within their farm.

Crop Percentage of farmers cultivating crop

Vumbu (n=34) Mwaloya (n=10)

Coconut 82* 90*

Maize 56* 90*

Cashew Nuts 74* 30

Mango 71* 50

Pea 53* 50

Cassava 35* 10

Orange 26* 20

Passion Fruit 18 10

Pumpkin 15 60

Sweet Potato 15 20

Rice 15* 0

Guavas 12 10

Lime 12 10

Banana 9 20

Beans 9 20

Casuarina 6 40

Eucalyptus 6 0

Sisal 6 0

Tomato 6 0

Chillies 3 10

Ground Nuts 3 10

Water melon 0 40

Cotton 0 10

Irish potatoes 0 10

Okra 0 10

Sugar Cane 0 10

Nine crops are cultivated by more than 50% of all farmers interviewed or are highlighted as the

most grown item on at least one farm (figure 3.1).

7

Figure 3.1. Nine crops cultivated by more than 50% of respondents per village or ranked as most grown

by one or more respondents. ** ranked as most grown crop by one or more respondents in Vumbu and

Mwaloya, * ranked as most grown crops by one or more respondents in Vumbu alone.

3.1.2 Crop Raiding Events

Farmers were questioned on their individual experiences and considerations of crop raiding by all

wild animals. All respondents (100%) from both villages reported having experienced crop raiding

by wild animals and believe their livelihood is impacted as a result of this activity. Farmers were

asked to rate how serious they considered the crop raiding problem on their farm to be. The

majority of farmers from Vumbu village (85%) rated their crop raiding problems as very serious,

while the majority of farmers from Mwaloya village (50%) rated their crop raiding problems as

serious (Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2 How farmers ranked their crop raiding problem displayed as percentage of respondents per

village

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Coconut **

Maize **

Cashew Nuts *

Mango * Pea * Cassava *

Orange *

Pumpkin Rice *

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f R

esp

on

de

nts

'Most Grown' Crops

Vumbu (n=34)

Mwaloya (n=10)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Very Serious Serious Fairly Serious Not Serious No Problem

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f R

esp

on

de

nts

Severity Rank

Vumbu (n=34)

Mwaloya (n=10)

8

Respondents were asked to list all wild animals that raid crops on their farm. A total of nine

animals were highlighted between Vumbu and Mwaloya farms (figure 3.3). Farmers from both

villages reported problems with baboons, vervet monkeys, Sykes monkeys and bushpig, an

additional five animals were reported by Vumbu respondents only. All respondents of both villages

reported suffering crop raiding from baboons, with 100% of Mwaloya respondents also reporting

crop raiding by vervet monkeys. Approximately 80% of all respondents reported crop raiding from

bushpig and 50% of Vumbu respondents had experienced crop raiding problems with buffalo. In

addition a breakdown of the crop types raided by each wild animal can be reviewed in Appendix 2.

Figure 3.3 Percentage of respondents, displayed by village, reporting crop raiding events by nine wild

animals species.

When asked 'which wild animal raids your farm most frequently?' more than 80% of respondents

cited baboons, followed by vervet monkeys and bushpig (figure 3.4).

Figure 3.4 Percentage of respondents, displayed by village, who reported the corresponding wild animal

as the most frequent crop raider.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f R

esp

on

de

nts

Reported Crop Raiding Speices

Vumbu (n=34)

Mwaloya (n=10)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Baboon Vervet Bushpig

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f R

esp

on

de

nts

Most Frequent Crop Raiding Species

Vumbu (n=34)

Mwaloya (n=10)

9

Farmers were further questioned about the frequencies of crop raiding events on their farm by

each species. More than 90% of all respondents perceive that baboon crop raiding events occur

daily and 90% of Mwaloya respondents perceive that vervet monkey crop raiding events occur

daily.

Table 3.2 Farmers perception of how often crop raiding events occur by species, displayed as percentage

of respondents per village.

Species Frequency Percentage

Vumbu (n=34)

Mwaloya (n=10)

Baboons Daily 97 90

Weekly 3 0

Monthly 0 10

Not affected 0 0

Vervet Daily 68 90

Weekly 6 10

Monthly 0 0

Not affected 26 0

Sykes Daily 3 10

Weekly 3 10

Monthly 0 0

Not affected 94 80

Buffalo Daily 3 0

Weekly 44 0

Monthly 3 0

Not affected 50 100

Bushpig Daily 50 0

Weekly 32 80

Monthly 0 10

Not affected 18 10

Other Daily 17 0

Weekly 6 0

Monthly 3 0

Not affected 74 100

Finally, the respondents were asked 'if wild animals had caused any damage other than crop

raiding?'. No other damage was reported by 18% of Vumbu respondents and 60% of Mwaloya

respondents. However, the remaining respondents reported wild animals killing and eating their

livestock (figure 3.5). All cases of damage to livestock was reported to have occurred by baboons

with the exception of one young goat eaten by a python. No other damage as a result of wild

animals was reported.

10

Figure 3.5 Percentage of respondents, displayed per village, reporting wild animals causing damage to

livestock.

3.1.3 Perceived causes of crop raiding

Respondents were asked to list what they perceived to be the cause of crop raiding on their farms

(table 3.3). Overall 94% of Vumbu respondents and 90% of Mwaloya respondents felt the crop

raiding issue had been caused or heightened by the establishment of Base Titanium mine site

and/or the relocation of people from other villages by Base Titanium and Kiscol. Just one

respondent of Mwaloya village stated that the 'animals have always crop raided', while two

respondents from Vumbu said 'our farm is too close to the forest'.

Causes of crop raiding Percentage of farmers

Vumbu (n=34)

Mwaloya (n=10)

Establishment of Base Titanium 44 50

Relocation of people by Base Titanium and/or Kiscol 71 50

Lack of wild food 3 10

Too much forest 3 0

Farm too close to forest 6 0

Wild animals have always crop raided 0 10

Destruction of forest 0 10

Table 3.3 Causes of crop raiding as perceived by the farmers of Vumbu and Mwaloya village

3.1.4 Farmer mitigation already in practice

When questioned all respondents state they are already implementing some level of mitigation

techniques, with 100% of all respondents engaging in chasing activity with or without dogs (table

3.4).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Poultry Young Goats None

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f R

esp

on

de

nts

Livestock Damaged by Wild Animals

Vumbu (n=34)

Mwaloya (n=10)

11

Mitigation Methods Percentage of farmers employing

mitigation methods

Vumbu (n=34) Mwaloya (n=10)

Human chasing with dogs 26 90

Human chasing without dogs 74 10

Continuous guarding 6 0

Shooting by KWS representatives 6 0

Shooting by residents 3 0

Snares 0 10

Table 3.3 Mitigation techniques already in use by farmers of Vumbu and Mwaloya village displayed as

percentages.

All Vumbu and Mwaloya respondents engage in chasing activities to protect their crops from wild

animal raids and all agree that this is the most effective method of mitigation for all wild animals

used at present, with the exception of buffalo. Guarding and chasing of crop raiding animals is the

only mitigation technique currently in use on a regular basis in any respondent farm. Some

farmers have historically built fences but they have been destroyed by buffalo and failed to

protect the crop from baboons, vervet or Sykes monkeys.

Buffalo are a large concern to the farmers of Vumbu and many farmers are fearful of the buffalo

due to their size and as such do nothing to deter their raids. Respondents highlighted that

baboons are not fearful of women or children and since the timings of their raids are

unpredictable a guard must be present at all times. Farmers of Vumbu feel overwhelmed by the

perceived increase in baboon numbers and are finding that chasing alone is no longer enough

because as one troop is chased away another enters the farm.

The majority of respondents in both villages indicate that they guard their crops and implement

mitigation techniques (i.e. chasing with or without dogs) all day and all night (table 3.4). Many

farmers think this is too much and mitigation techniques that protect their crop in the absences of

humans need to be devised.

Periods of time that mitigation methods are in operation

Percentage of farms

Vumbu (n=34) Mwaloya (n=10)

All day and all night 59 90

All day 41 10

Table 3.4 Amount of time respondents indicate they spend in protecting their crops from raiding events,

displayed as percentage of respondents per village.

Interviewees were asked for ideas on mitigation techniques or solutions that could be

implemented to resolve the crop raiding issues (table 3.5). An extremely large proportion (94%) of

Vumbu respondents believed relocation of the people was a solution, followed by relocation of

the animals. Mwaloya respondents preferred electric fencing of the forest to prevent the animal

entering the village to relocation of people or animals as a solution.

12

Suggested mitigation methods Percentage of farmers

Vumbu (n=34) Mwaloya (n=10)

Relocation of animals 32 20

Relocation of people 94 0

Electric fence forest 12 60

Electric fence farms 12 0

Employ more guards 0 20

Kill all of the raiding animals 3 0

None given 9 20

Table 3.5 Suggestion made by the respondents on mitigation methods to reduce crop raiding on their

farm displayed as a percentage of respondents per village.

3.2 Preliminary analysis of Baseline Study

Baseline data collection has been conducted on four farms within each of the two villages from

December 2014 - to present. Each farm is studied for a two day period once every eight days, with

two researcher per research period present. All farms have been researched equally. Due to this

rotation crop raiding events may have occurred during this research period on other farms that

have not been recorded. Data analysis for this report consists of three months from December

2014 - February 2015 and includes only the crop raiding events witnessed firsthand by Colobus

Conservation research team.

3.2.1 Crop Raiding Events (CRE)

During the research period 24 CRE's were recorded on farms in Vumbu village and 50 CRE's in

Mwaloya. Two species were recorded raiding Vumbu farms; baboons were responsible for 71% of

CRE's and Sykes 29%. While in Mwaloya farms three species were recorded raiding; baboons were

responsible for 48% of CRE's, vervet monkeys 28% and Sykes monkeys 24% (figure 3.6)

Figure 3.6 Percentage of wild animals responsible for all recorded CRE's displayed per village.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Baboon Vervet Sykes

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f R

eco

rde

d C

RE'

s

Wild Animals Recorded Crop Raiding

Vumbu (n=24)

Mwaloya (n=50)

13

In the majority of CRE's, (54% in Vumbu farms and 75% in Mwaloya farms) no chasing of the crop

raiding animals was recorded (figure 3.7). There were two reasons recorded for the lack human of

response to the CRE's; either there was no-one stationed on the farm guarding the crop or raiding

animals went unnoticed while the people were around the home or working elsewhere on the

farm. In CRE's that were responded to by humans less than half of all events were responded to by

adult men in favour of women and children.

Figure 3.7 Categories of people present on farm to 'guard' crops during each recorded CRE displayed as

percentage of all recorded CRE's per village

At the onset of CRE's where human presence was recorded only 17% of Mwaloya farmers had

someone actively engaged in guarding and patrolling the crop, no guarding activity was recorded

for Vumbu farms at the time of any CRE. In the remaining cases the 'guards' who ultimately chased

away the crop raiding animals were engaged in other activities (figure 3.9).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f R

eco

rde

d C

RE'

s

People Present to Guard Crops during each Recorded CRE

Vumbu (n=24)

Mwaloya (n=50)

14

Figure 3.9 Activity of 'guard' at the start of each CRE that was responded to by human chasing, displayed

as percentage per village.

In both Vumbu and Mwaloya farms when a CRE was responded to by a 'chaser' the majority of

crop raiding animal were chased away by humans using dogs (figure 3.10). Alternative methods

were chasing with other people or chasing alone. Throwing stones and shouting were used in

combination with one of the chasing methods.

Figure 3.10 Mitigation techniques employed by 'chaser' displayed as percentage per village

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Guarding crop and patrolling

Working on the farm

Chores outside

Chores inside

Playing at home

Sitting outside not

vigilent

Inside the house

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f R

eco

rde

d C

RE'

s w

ith

a G

uar

d R

esp

on

se

Acitivity of Guard at onset of Recorded CRE's

Vumbu (n=11)

Mwaloya (n=15)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Chase alone Chase with other people

Chase with dogs

Throw stones

Shout Shout to alert others

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f R

eco

rde

d C

RE'

s w

ith

a G

uar

d R

ep

on

se

Action of Guard to CRE

Vumbu (n=11)

Mwaloya (n=15)

15

Once mitigation techniques, such as chasing were employed during a CRE, in the majority of cases

(77% Vumbu farms and 94% Mwaloya farms) the crop raider left the farm entirely, generally

retreating to the forest (figure 3.11). Ad hoc observations indicate that the guard/chaser needs to

remain present for a period of time afterwards to reduce the chance of the crop raiders re-

entering the farm.

Figure 3.11 Response of crop raiding animal to human mitigation (chasing), displayed as a percentage of

CRE's responded to per village

For each CRE witnessed crops eaten or damaged by wild animals where recorded. Mwaloya farms

had more crops damaged or eaten by crop raiders in terms of quantity and variety and there was

little overlap between the two villages in the types of crops raided (figure 3.12). Information on

crop availability has been recorded but is yet to be analysed. Interestingly in 17% of Vumbu raids

and 22% Mwaloya raids the crop raiders did not damage or eat any crop - the reasons for this are

yet to be understood, but likely link to chasing mitigation efforts by the farmers.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Retreat to forest

Leave farm but watch

from a distance

Leave farm Move away but remain

on farm

Threat display to human or

dog

No response Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f R

eco

rde

CR

E's

wit

h a

Gu

ard

Re

spo

nse

Reponse of Crop Raiding Animal to Guarding Action

Vumbu (n=11)

Mwaloya (n=15)

16

Figure 3.12 Percentage of crops damaged or eaten during CRE, displayed as a percentage per village

4. Discussion

The number of CRE's witnessed by the research team is considerably less than expected for the

information portrayed in the questionnaires, however, the baseline data collection has thus far

been conducted during the dry season and as such crop cultivation has been minimal. In the two

weeks since the first rains fell and the farmers are now seeding new crop the researcher are

reporting an increase in CRE's.

Even with only preliminary analysis of the CRE data it is clear that there are differences between

what the respondents of the questionnaire perceive the problem with CRE's to be and what is

recorded by an independent body, most notable are frequency of occurrence and mitigation

techniques employed by the farmers in the form of human guarding and chasing.

97% and 90% of farmers from Vumbu and Mwaloya respectively state that baboons crop raid their

farms daily, yet during a 120 day research period only 17 raids by baboons on Vumbu farms were

witnessed and 14 on Mwaloya farms. As stated previously this research period did occur during

the dry season when crop cultivation is minimal and therefore crop raiding opportunities are

reduced, however a number of crops were fruiting and harvested during the entirety of this

period, most notably cashew nuts and peas.

All respondents indicated that their crop was guarded through all day light hours by an employed

guard, farm worker or family member. However, in 54% of Vumbu CRE's and 75% of Mwaloya

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 P

erc

en

tage

of

Re

cord

ed

CR

E's

Crops Damaged during Recorded CRE's

Vumbu (n=60)

Mwaloya (n=104)

17

CRE's there was either no human presence anywhere on the farm or the appointed 'guard' was

engaged in alternate activity which resulted in the CRE going unnoticed. When a guard was

present in more than 50% of cases it was women and/or children, despite the respondents being

aware these individuals are not effective at guarding crops against baboons.

Perceived loss of crops to wildlife, inflated crop raiding frequencies and time invested in mitigation

is often pronounced in people’s minds [25]. Other studies that have combined farmers

perceptions with an independent assessment, have shown that farmers often overestimate the

impact of CRE's on their crops and time by as much as 30-35% [7], [10]. Farmers do not necessarily

inflate their estimates intentionally, people’s perception and memory can be influenced by a

number of underlying structural and economic factors [10]. It is often difficult to retrospectively

estimate losses and particular events can take on greater significance in people’s minds [10].

Perceptions also often reflect extreme damage and events not average losses and occurrences [7].

This information is not necessarily unreliable and inaccurate, but has to be handled and

interpreted appropriately [10]. These perceptions form an important part of understanding what

the situation means to those involved, how conflict impacts people’s lives and is ultimately

invaluable in structuring long term effective mitigation techniques.

4.1 Future Plans

From the information displayed in table 3.1 and figure 3.1, nine crops have been selected for the

focus of mitigation efforts. The selection of these nine crops is based upon one of two factors:

1) The crop was cultivated by more than 50% of farmers in either Vumbu, Mwaloya or both or

2) The crop was highlighted as 'most grown' within one or more farm.

It is highly likely that any successful mitigation tools employed for these nine crops will be

transferable to other crops cultivated with similar techniques.

From the results displayed in figures 3.3 - 3.5 in addition to table 3.2 mitigation efforts will focus

primarily on reducing crop raiding by baboons, provided the results of Phase 3 data collection

support these. It is highly likely that any successful mitigation technique for baboons will also be

successful for vervet and Sykes monkeys. Consideration will also be given to trying to reduce crop

raiding by buffalo and bushpig.

4.2 Preliminary Mitigation Techniques

As explained in the methods update (section 2.1) mitigation trails will begin in May 2015 in two

farms per village and CRE data collection will continue within both villages on all four farms. By

conducting the mitigation trails and evaluations in this method data will exist for CRE's pre- and

post- mitigation trails but also with in the same time frame. Recent research has revealed the

importance of being able to evaluate mitigation techniques within exactly comparable time

periods, in addition to pre- and post- mitigation trails. For example, in the event of population

reductions or movements of the crop raiding species the mitigation trail may be deemed

successful when in fact crop raiding has reduced due to a reduction in one or more crop raiding

species.

18

Until a full analysis of the CRE's has occurred decisions on mitigation techniques to trial in the

farms cannot be finalised. With this in mind four main suggestions are currently under

consideration, further research for their effectiveness and approval from Base Titanium are

required.

N.B. Our aim is to ensure that mitigation techniques can continue without on-going input from

Base Titanium and are therefore practical after the life of the mine site. Initial investment from

Base Titanium will be required, but if the mitigation techniques successfully reduce incidents of

CRE's and/or the quantity of crop damage the farmers will experience an increase in financial

benefit from their farm, a portion of which can be reinvested to maintain the mitigation

technique.

Not all suggested mitigation techniques protect all crops from all crop raiding animals and a

combination of techniques may need to be employed.

1) Cones (Colo-cone - see appendix 3) - fixing cones around the trunk of trees where the following

criteria fit (figure 3.13)

the lowest branch is too far from the ground for monkeys to reach and

any neighbouring tree within jumping distance is also suitable for fixture of a cone,

The aim is to produce an independent stand of trees with cones. It is believed that this method

will prevent monkeys from climbing the trunk of a tree to reach the fruit and is deemed most

suitable for use on coconut trees, but may be applicable to some mango trees. It is suggested that

the cone would be constructed out of iron sheets and must be substantially big enough that adult

male baboons cannot simply jump over it.

Figure 3.13 Colocone prototype in trial at Colobus Conservation

19

2) Employ guards/monitors - establish an employment scheme and rota to ensure all farms have

adequate CRE monitors in place and active during all day light hours. In this case monitors must be

men over the age of 18 as women and children are not effective against baboons. Alternatively,

monitors could be assigned to each baboon, vervet and Sykes troop, moving with their assigned

troop from dusk till dawn, scaring the troop away from farms and warning farmers of an

approaching troop. A similar method is in place in urban areas of South Africa.

3) Fencing - fence the perimeter of each farm or entire village. The fence would need to be strong

enough and buried deep enough to prohibit buffalo and/or bushpig. A Perspex (or similar) lip

would need to be place along the top to prevent monkeys climbing over (figure 3.14). This method

could be made functional to mitigate against all major crop raiding species and protect all crops.

Figure 3.14 A fence used in an open topped enclosure for monkeys is the basis for the fence design to

keep crop raiders out of a village or farm

Two issues of concern with this method is the cost of maintenance to keep the fence functional

and as many of the farms fall on Base Titanium or Kiscol land fencing gives the perception of

ownership to the farmer. Alternatively, a fence could be located between the village and the

20

forest only. This would greatly reduce entry points to the village by the animals and if combined

with employment of village guards at the end of each fence, the entry hotspot will be monitored.

4) Baboon proof enclosures for poultry - providing each farmer with a chicken coup and outdoor

run so chickens can be kept safe during periods when guards or monitors are not available. This

mitigation could be implemented immediately, without compromising the remaining study. It

would increase goodwill within the villages towards Base Titanium and provide the farmers with

an alternative source of income while crop raiding issues continue to be addressed.

5. Problems

The only problems of note is the transport of researchers from Base Titanium Camp to their

research village. The researchers need to be in the farms at dawn on alternate days and do not

leave the farm until dusk on the remaining days. Transportation from Base Titanium vehicles have

proven problematic at these times and the researchers are reluctant to walk during nightfall. To

date they have been travelling via push bike, but these are not adequate for the sandy roads in

and out of the villages and break down regularly, frustrating Base Titanium maintenance staff and

compromising research hours on the farm. One workable solution would be for the researcher

based at Base Titanium camp to seek accommodation in their research village on evenings that fall

between afternoon and morning research periods. This would also bring an additional source of

income to a few farmers.

6. Future Plans

There is interest from a Post Doc student based at Durham University, UK, to assist on the

mitigation phase of this project. Leah is an expert in the field of crop raiding mitigation having

worked on similar projects in South Africa and recently completing PhD field work on the topic. If

Base Titanium agrees with the advantage of having such knowledgeable personal join the team

she would aim to join us in September and lead on the mitigation techniques in the remaining 7

villages, while helping to co-ordinate the baseline questionnaire surveys and data collection. She

would be based in the field and work alongside the current researchers developing and

implementing mitigation techniques and she would source her own funding to cover her expenses.

It is our belief that with Leah in the field the project would develop at a much quicker pace.

References

1. Sitati NW, Walpole MJ (2006) Assessing farm-based measures for mitigating human-elephant

conflict in Transmara District, Kenya. Oryx 40: 279–286.

2. Graham MD, Ochieng T (2008) Uptake and performance of farm-based measures for reducing

crop raiding by elephants Loxodonta africana among smallholder farms in Laikipia District, Kenya.

Oryx 42: 76–82.

3. Strum SC (2010) The development of primate raiding: Implications for management and

conservation. International Journal of Primatology 31: 133–156.

21

4. Webber AD (2006) Primate crop raiding in Uganda: Actual and perceived risks around Budongo

Forest Reserve [PhD Thesis]. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University.

5. Hill CM (2005) People, crops, and primates: A conflict of interests. In: Paterson JD, Wallis J,

editors. Commensalism and conflict: The human-primate interface. Norman, Oklahoma: American

Society of Primatologists. 40–59.

6. Hill CM (2000) Conflict of interest between people and baboons: Crop raiding in Uganda.

International Journal of Primatology 21: 299–315.

7. Naughton-Treves L (1997) Farming the forest edge: Vulnerable places and people around Kibale

National Park, Uganda. Geographical Review 87: 27–46.

8. Osborn FV, Parker GE (2003) Towards an integrated approach for reducing the conflict between

elephants and people: A review of current research. Oryx 37: 80–84.

9. Wallace GE (2010) Monkeys in maize: Primate crop-raiding behaviour and developing on-farm

techniques to mitigate human-wildlife conflict [PhD Thesis]. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University.

528 p.

10. Hill CM, Osborn FV, Plumptre AJ (2002) Human-wildlife conflict: Identifying the problem and

possible solutions. Albertine Rift Technical Report Series No 1 Wildlife Conservation Society.

11. CARE ITFC, CDC WCS (2003) Reducing the costs of conservation to frontline communities in

southwest Uganda. Knowledge Base Review Report. CARE International in Uganda, Institute of

Tropical Forest Conservation, Conservation Development Centre, and Wildlife Conservation

Society. 130 p.

12. Paterson JD, Wallis J, editors (2005) Commensalism and conflict: The human-primate interface.

Norman, Oklahoma: American Society of Primatologists. 483 p.

13. Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A, editors (2005) People and wildlife: Conflict or

coexistence? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 497 p.

14. Maples WR (1969) Adaptive behavior of baboons. American Journal of Physical Anthropology

31: 107–109.

15. Strum SC (1994) Prospects for management of primate pests. Revue d'Ecologie (La Terre Et La

Vie) 49: 295–306.

22

16. Naughton-Treves L (1998) Predicting patterns of crop damage by wildlife around Kibale

National Park, Uganda. Conservation Biology 12: 156–168.

17. Saj TL, Sicotte P, Paterson JD (2001) The conflict between vervet monkeys and farmers at the

forest edge in Entebbe, Uganda. African Journal of Ecology 39: 195–199.

18. Warren Y, Buba B, Ross C (2007) Patterns of crop-raiding by wild and domestic animals near

Gashaka Gumti National Park, Nigeria. International Journal of Pest Management 53: 207–216.

19. Conover M (2002) Resolving human-wildlife conflicts: The science of wildlife damage

management. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers. 418 p.

20. Eggeling WJ (1947) Observations on the ecology of the Budongo rain forest, Uganda. Journal of

Ecology 34: 20–87.

21. Plumptre AJ (1996) Changes following 60 years of selective timber harvesting in the Budongo

Forest Reserve, Uganda. Forest Ecology and Management 89: 101–113.

22. Hill CM (1997) Crop-raiding by wild vertebrates: The farmer's perspective in an agricultural

community in western Uganda. International Journal of Pest Management 43: 77–84.

23. Tweheyo M, Hill CM, Obua J (2005) Patterns of crop raiding by primates around the Budongo

Forest Reserve, Uganda. Wildlife Biology 11: 237–247.

24. Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behavior: Sampling methods. Behaviour 49: 227–267.

25. Lee PC & Priston NEC (2005) Human Attitudes to Primates: Perceptions of Pests, Conflict and Consequences for Primate Conservation.

23

Appendix 1

Questionnaire - as attachment

Appendix 2

Vumbu Baboons Vervet Sykes Buffalo Bushpig Other Percentage of farmers

growing the crop

Coconut 82 12 3 0 0 0 82

Maize 47 35 0 30 50 0 56

Cashew Nuts 59 30 0 0 0 0 74

Mango 65 56 6 0 0 0 71

Pea 41 6 0 3 35 0 53

Cassava 24 0 3 0 24 0 35

Orange 18 3 0 0 0 0 26

Passion Fruit 9 9 0 0 3 0 18

Pumpkin 12 0 0 0 9 0 15

Sweet Potato 15 3 0 0 12 0 15

Rice 15 6 0 9 12 15 15

Guavas 0 0 0 0 0 0 12

Lime 9 0 0 0 0 0 12

Banana 6 3 0 0 0 0 9

Beans 9 0 0 3 0 0 9

Casuarina 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

Eucalyptus 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

Sisal 6 0 0 0 0 0 6

Tomato 6 0 0 0 6 0 6

Chilies 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

Ground Nuts 3 6 0 0 0 0 3

Water melon N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0

Cotton N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0

Irish potatoes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0

Okra N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0

Sugar Cane N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0

Not raided by species 0 26 94 50 18 82

24

Mwaloya Baboons Vervet Sykes Bushpig Percentage of farmers

growing the crop

Coconut 90 0 0 0 90

Maize 90 90 20 70 90

Cashew Nuts 20 10 0 0 30

Mango 60 60 20 0 50

Pea 30 20 0 30 50

Cassava 0 0 0 10 10

Orange 20 0 0 0 20

Passion Fruit 10 10 10 0 10

Pumpkin 40 0 0 10 60

Sweet Potato 20 10 0 30 20

Rice N/A N/A N/A N/A 0

Guavas 10 10 0 0 10

Lime 0 0 0 0 10

Banana 10 10 0 0 20

Beans 20 20 0 10 20

Casuarina 30 0 0 0 40

Eucalyptus N/A N/A N/A N/A 0

Sisal N/A N/A N/A N/A 0

Tomato N/A N/A N/A N/A 0

Chilies 10 0 0 0 10

Ground Nuts 10 0 0 0 10

Water melon 30 0 0 10 40

Cotton 0 0 0 0 10

Irish potatoes 0 0 0 0 10

Okra 0 0 0 0 10

Sugar Cane 10 0 0 0 10

Not raided by species 0 0 80 20

Appendix 3

Colocone - see attached document