Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Asian Elephant Conservation: Too Elephantocentric? Towards a Biocultural Approach of Conservation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Asian Bioethics Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Drawing from the example of Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) conservation in Laos, this article primarily intends to reveal the elephantocentric vision adopted by mainstream conservation project in direction to the species. In the second part, I will present some ethnographic notes collected among local population who daily live and work with pachyderms. These notes will help in opening up a broader and more ecocentric approach of elephant conservation by highlighting links between biological and cultural diversity. By revealing the cosmo-ecological view of elephants as thought locally, I will then propose an enlarged vision of elephant conservation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Such approach has been developed by French anthropologist Florence Brunois, following a long investigation into the ecological knowledge of the Kasua of Papoua-New Guinea. For the Kasua, their knowledge had been borrowed from other nonhuman beings, whether spirits or animals (Brunois 2005). Access to pachyderm knowledge about their environment is then being possible through the mediation of knowledge and the way these behaviors are perceived by mahouts.

  2. Taking its roots along with the biology of conservation (see Soulé 1985), ecocentrism is the recognition of intrinsic natural value. It emphasizes the interconnection of life forms within a complex and harmonious whole. Among others, a recent call for embracing such ethic in conservation has been made by a collective of researchers (see Piccolo et al. 2018)

  3. A similar initiative was carried out in 2002.

  4. This conservation model emerged in the late 1990s. With regard to the Asian elephant, such programs have been undertaken by NGOs in India, where there have been wild elephant translocation exoduses for a decade now, as well as in Sri Lanka and more recently in Laos, where the main conservation project is also aimed at creating an artificial herd to be set free (see D. Nogués-Bravo et al., 2016).

  5. As pointed out by a team of ecologists, rewilding appears to be the new “Pandora’s box” for biodiversity conservation, so it is advisable to be very cautious when embarking on such a program Indeed, the existence of significant ecological and socio-economic unknowns requires a prior assessment of their consequences (biodiversity, invasions, biocontrol, economics, societal conflicts, ecosystem services), which has not been done in Laos, where implementation has been entrusted to NGOs and practitioners. Researchers in the humanities and social sciences insist on the long-term unpredictability of such programs and emphasize the multiplicity of practices and concepts to which the term rewilding refers (see Lorimer et al.2015). Thus, in the eyes of the scientific community, the re-herding program acts as a real laboratory on life.

  6. <www.generosity.com/animal-pet-fundraising/elephant-rescue-mother-and-calf> (consulted on 27/04/2018)

  7. Khor correspond to ankus in the Indian world from where it is originated and then spread throughout South and Southeast Asia (see Trautmann 2015)

  8. The group has recently published a report regarding the welfare of elephant in tourist camps (see AESAN 2015).

  9. This group was initially known as ASEAN Captive Elephant Working Group.

  10. Banning elephant trekking in the name of their welfare is something also observed in other elephant range countries. For example, Thailand which has also changed the way tourist’s camps are adapting themselves and communication towards visitors (see chapter 9 “Elephants in Tourism. Sustainable and Practical Approaches to Captive Elephant Welfare and Conservation in Thailand” in Malikhao and Servaes 2017).

  11. Implanted in the country since 2001, ElefantAsia concentrated its efforts on the registration of captive elephant, reproduction and veterinary. Runs by two French nationals, the team is mainly composed by French veterinarians coming as part of a voluntary contract. In order to get trust from local mahouts and owners, they provide free care to elephant as well as distribute “Elephant first aid kit” (Sutter 2010). The NGO was also at the initiative of the Elephant Festival annually held in Sayabouri Province since 2007.

  12. For example, in most elephant parks, tourists are invited to feed the pachyderm with bananas (kwai) or sugarcane (oidam). As several mahouts have told me outside the parks, these foods are to be fed in an exceptional way to the pachyderms, because they quickly take strength and become uncontrollable. In addition, bananas can cause many digestive problems (constipation) if consumed in large quantities.

  13. This point is also an argument use by elephant’s owners which prefer not renting their elephant to tourist camps and continue working with them in forests (see Lainé 2017a, b).

  14. For a broader discussion on the emergence, goal, and differences between animal and environmental ethic, as well as an attempt to link them, see Callicott (1988). For a reverse perspective on their linkage, see Sagoff (1984).

  15. In his book Beyond nature and culture, French anthropologist Philippe Descola (2013) shows that the opposition between nature/culture is not universal, but reflects a Western cosmological conception, namely naturalism. Such view postulates the uniqueness of nature on which unfolds the diversity of cultures, and a clear distinction of what belongs to “nature” and what belong to “culture.” In such ontological schemes, only humans have subjectivity. Phillipe Descola puts forward four ontological schemes that allow comparing non-human and humans: naturalism (same interiority/same exteriority), animism (same different interiority/physicality), analogism (different interiority, different physicalist), and totemism (same interiority/same physicality).

    An ontology is understood as a stable inference mode (a mental operation at the basis of all reasoning) defining the properties of the beings encompassing in the environment.

  16. For example, during my investigation, in every elephant owners’ house I visited, I noticed photographs of their elephants appeared alongside the portraits of the different family members.

  17. As part of the four ontological schemes emphasized by Descola (see note infra.), animism give to non-human an interiority similar to human. Plants and animals are like “persons” have a social life similar to that of humans, but differs in the body (same interiority, different physicality).

  18. Most of these manuscripts are written in Tai, the oldest in Pali.

  19. Interview conducted in Ban Phonxay on 22 August 2016.

  20. Let us be reminded that high scale of deforestation and biodiversity erosion have been induced by the appearance of machines, not the work of elephants. Elephants and their mahouts were the first victims of widespread bans in Asia (Lainé 2012). On a controlled scale, the forest industry can regenerate the forest while providing excellent working conditions for pachyderms.

  21. Interestingly, taking note of to the current re-herding conservation programs in Laos as seen in part I, which intends to (re)produce wild elements with domestic one, is in perfect contradiction with the way of which are thought and experienced the relations that the local populations.

  22. Biocultural diversity considers the diversity of life in all of its manifestation (cultural, biological, and linguistic) is inter-related within a socio-ecological adaptive system (Maffi 2005).

  23. Since the last decades, the rights of indigenous populations and their role into biodiversity conservation is getting more and more recognized at the international level. It has started back in 1992 at the Rio Summit, which article 8 J considers that the protection of nature and the conservation of biodiversity depends on the right of local populations to preserve their territories and ways of life, including within degraded areas and/or towards endangered species. More recently, the need of taken into account the local knowledge possesses and daily mobilizes by indigenous people in their contact and interaction with their surrounding environment has been highlighted in two prominent international text and agreement. It is firstly the case under the Nagoya Protocol (in force since 2014), on access to genetic resources and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits, arising out of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Secondly, within the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), an intergovernmental body which assesses the state of biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides. While the recent IPBES framework is primarily dedicated to ecosystems services, it also recognizes the role of socio-economics activities in the fate of biodiversity.

References

  • Brunois, Florence. 2005. Pour une approche interactive des savoirs locaux: l’ethno-éthologie. Journal de la Société des océanistes 120-121: 31–39. https://doi.org/10.4000/jso.335.

  • Campos-Arceiz, Ahimsa, and Steve Blake. 2011. Megagardeners of the Forest – the Role of Elephants in Seed Dispersal. Acta Oecologica 37 (6): 542–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2011.01.014.

  • Choudhury, Anwaruddin, Deep Kanta Lahiri Choudhury, Ajay Desai, J. William Duckworth, P. S. Easa, Asir Jawahar Thomas Johnsingh, Prithiviraj Fernando, Simon Hedges, Manori Gunawardena, Fred Kurt, Ullas Karanth, Adrian Lister, Vivek Menon., Heidi Riddle, Alex Rübel, and Eric Wikramanayake. (IUCN SSC Asian Elephant Specialist Group). 2008. Elephas maximus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T7140A12828813. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T7140A12828813.en.

  • Duffy, Rosaleen. 2014. Interactive elephants: Tourism, nature and neoliberalism in Southern Africa. Annals of Tourism Research 44 (1): 88–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elvin, Mark. 2008. The retreat of the elephants: An environmental history of China. New Haven: Yale University Press.

  • Emourgeon, Clève. 2010. Usage et représentations de l’éléphant en Thaïlande: L’animal, le patrimoine, le symbole. PhD Dissertation, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre.

  • Haricha Franziska, K., Anna C. Treydtea, Joseph O. Ogutub, John E. Roberts, Chution Savinid, Jan M. Bauere, and Savinif Tommaso. 2016. Seed dispersal potential of Asian elephants. Acta Oecologica 77: 144–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2016.10.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeangène Vilmer, Jean-Baptiste. 2008. Éthique animale. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

  • Keil, Paul G. 2016. Colonising in the Footsteps of Elephants: Interspecies Pathways through North-East India and Beyond. In SOAS Elephant Conference. Bangalore, India. Available at: http://www.geocities.ws/soaselephantconference2016/keil.pdf.

  • Khounbouline, Khamkhoun. 2011. Current status of Asian elephants in Lao PDR. Gajah 35: 62–66.

  • Kopnina, Helen, Haydn Washington, Bron Raymond Taylor, and Joe Gray. 2018. The ‘future of conservation’ debate: Defending ecocentrism and the nature needs half movement. Biological Conservation 217: 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.10.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopnina, Helen. 2016. Wild animals and justice: The case of the dead elephant in the room. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy 19 (3): 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2016.1204882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kremmer, Christopher. 1997. Stalking the Elephant Kings: in Search of Laos. Honolulu: University of Hawai Press.

  • Lainé, Nicolas. 2012. Effects of the 1996 timber ban in Northeast India: The case of the Khamtis of Lohit District, Arunachal Pradesh. In Nature, environment and society: Conservation, governance and transformation in India, edited by Nicholas Lainé and T.B. Subba, 3–93. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan.

  • Lainé, Nicolas. 2014. Vivre et travailler avec les éléphants: une option durable pour la protection et la conservation de l’espèce. Enquête sur les relations entre les Khamti et les éléphants dans le nord-est de l’Inde. PhD dissertation, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre.

  • Lainé, Nicolas. 2015. Enjeux et paradoxes autour de la conservation des éléphants dans l’Inde comtemporaine. Écologie et Politique 50: 147–162.

  • Lainé, Nicolas. 2016. Conduct and Collaboration in human-Elephant working Communities in Northeast India. In Conflict, Negotiation, and Coexistence: Rethinking Human-Elephant Relations in South Asia, edited by Piers Locke and Jane Buckingham, 180-205. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199467228.001.0001.

  • Lainé, Nicolas. 2017a. Travail interespèces et conservation. Le cas des éléphants d'Asie. Écologie et Politique 54: 45–64.

  • Lainé, Nicolas. 2017b. Surveiller les animaux, conserver l’espèce. Enjeux et défis de la surveillance de la tuberculose des éléphants au Laos. Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances 11 (1): 23–44. https://doi.org/10.3917/rac.034.0023.

  • Lainé, Nicolas. 2018a. Why the Khamti did not domesticate their elephants? Building a hybrid sociality with tamed elephants. In Hybrid Communities. Biosocial Approaches to Domestication and Other Trans-species Relationships, edited byCharles Stépanoff and Jean-Denis Vigne, 221–235. New York: Routledge.

  • Lainé, Nicolas. 2018b. Bo mee xang pa kor bo mee xang (sans éléphants de forêt, il n’y a plus d’éléphants). Péninsule 75 (2): 73–99.

  • Lestel, Dominique. 2013. The withering of shared life through the loss of biodiversity. Social Science Information 52 (2): 307–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018413477335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorimer, Jamie, Chris Sandom, Paul Jepson, Chris Doughty, Maan Barua, and Keith J. Kirby. 2015. Rewilding: sciences, practice, and politics. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 40 (1): 39–62. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maffi, Luisa. 2005. Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. Annual Review of Anthropology (29): 599–617.

  • Malikhao, Patchanee and Lisa Servaes. 2017. Elephants in tourism. Sustainable and practical approaches to captive elephant welfare and conservation in Thailand. In Culture and Communication in Thailand. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4125-9_9

  • McConkey, Kim R., Anuttara Nathalang, Warren Y. Brockelman, Chanpen Saralamba, Jantima Santon, Umaporn Matmoon, Rathasart Somnuk, Kanchit Srinoppawan. 2018. Different megafauna vary in their seed dispersal effectiveness of the megafaunal fruit Platymitra macrocarpa (Annonaceae). PLoS One 13 (7): e0198960. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198960.

  • Manceron, Vanessa. 2012. Les vivants outragés: usages militants des corps et perceptions des animaux d’élevage chez les défenseurs de la cause animale en France. In Des hommes malades des animaux, edited by Frédéric Keck and Noélie Vialles, 57–78. Paris: Editions de L'Herne.

  • Nogues-Bravo, David, Daniel Simberloff, Carsten Rahbek and Nathan J Sanders. 2016. “Rewilding is the new Pandora’s box in conservation.” Current Biology (26): R87–R91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.12.044.

  • Piccolo, John J., Haydn Washington, Helen Kopnina, and Bron Taylor. 2018. Why conservation biologists should re-embrace their ecocentric roots. Conservation Biology 32 (4): 959–961. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13067.

  • Porcher, Jocelyne, and Tiphaine Schmitt. 2010. Les vaches collaborent-elles au travail ?: Une question de sociologie. Revue du MAUSS 35 (1): 235. https://doi.org/10.3917/rdm.035.0235.

  • Sagoff, Mark. 1984. Animal liberation and environmental ethics: Bad marriage, quick divorce. Osgoode Hall Law Journal 22 (2): 297–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santiapillai, Charles, Peter Jackson, and IUCN/SSC Asian Elephant Specialist Group. 1990. The Asian elephant: an action plan for its conservation. Gland: IUCN.

  • Singh, Sarindra. 2012. Natural Potency and Political Power: Forest and State Authority in Contemporary Laos. Honolulu: University of Hawai Press.

  • Soulé, Michael E. 1985. What is conservation biology? A new synthetic discipline addresses the dynamics and problems of perturbed species, communities, and ecosystems. BioScience 35 (11): 727–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/1310054.

  • Sutter, Ingrid C. 2010. ElefantaAsia in the Lao PDR – An overview. Gajah 33: 53–57.

  • Suter, Ingrid C., Gilles P. Maurer, and Greg Baxter. 2014. Population viability of captive Asian elephants in the Lao PDR. Endangered Species Research 24: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00578.

  • Trautmann, Thomas R. 2015. Elephants and Kings: an Environmental History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt. 2003. Agrarian allegory and global futures. In Nature in the Global South: Environmental Projects in South and Southeast Asia, edited by Paul Greenough and Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing, 124–170. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

  • Zago, Marcel. 1972. Rites et cérémonies en milieu bouddhiste lao. Roma: Università Gregoriana.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Associate, Laboratoire d’anthropologie sociale, Collège de France, Paris, France

    Nicolas Lainé

Authors
  1. Nicolas Lainé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicolas Lainé.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lainé, N. Asian Elephant Conservation: Too Elephantocentric? Towards a Biocultural Approach of Conservation. ABR 10, 279–293 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-018-0070-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-018-0070-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation