Author: Michelle Luiz

Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) refers to negative interactions between wild animals and people, including situations like crop damage by herbivores such as elephants and wild pigs, livestock depredation by carnivores such as lions, and the killing of ‘problem’ animals by humans. This phenomenon is not new and is a part and parcel of daily life for farmers and herders, whose livelihoods are directly impacted. Despite the prevalence of conflict, established methods for  mitigation remain elusive for most communities. This is especially true for those that live on the fringe of wildlife reserves, known as “hotspots” for crop-raiding and depredation events.

On-the-ground research led by Dr. Krithi Karanth from Centre for Wildlife Studies evaluated the frequency and types of conflict occurring around 11 protected wildlife reserves in the states of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Rajasthan from 2009 onwards. These reserves represent a wide range of ecosystems. They also examined the factors that influence the use of conflict mitigation measures by local communities.

This research found that strategies for mitigation ranged from direct (fencing/guarding of crops and livestock) to indirect (crop insurance, government compensation schemes) measures. Equally diverse is the list of species that were found to regularly interact with farmers: from tigers and leopards to sloth bears, elephants and chital. As if to match this ecological diversity, communities living around reserves are a synonymous mix of cultures, traditional practices and religions. In fact, this juxtaposition of high-density human settlements and wildlife persistence points not only to frequency of conflict, but a continuing tolerance between people and animals. 

By surveying 5,196 households across 2,855 villages around the protected areas, the scientists obtained information on demographics, husbandry practices, incidence of conflict and mitigation measures. The results are threefold: when it comes to mitigation, history, species and location matter. Households that experienced a long history of conflict and lived in closest proximity to the reserve were most likely to employ mitigation measures. In terms of species, interactions with wild pigs, nilgai, chinkara and big cats were associated with higher use of mitigation measures. 

Fundamentally, many households continued to experience loss despite the type and intensity of mitigation employed. The research highlights the need to evaluate current HWC mitigation strategies and creatively adapt new measures tailored to each locality. The scientists end by calling for increased investment for high-risk, vulnerable communities and a standardization of national policy regarding investment into mitigation measures  and post-incident compensation. They conclude that such efforts will help to build local tolerance and support for broader wildlife conservation schemes – a vital component to protecting biodiversity in the long run. 

Original Article: History, Location, and Species Matter: Insights for Human-Wildlife Conflict Mitigation from India – Krithi K Karanth, Sahila Kudalkar (Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 2017)

You can access the original article here.

You can access the Kannada translation here.