Research Article: Choudhury U. R., Margulies J. D., Mariyam D., Rajeev B. R., Karanth K. K. (2023). Seeing animals like a state? Divergent forester subjectivities and the managing of human-wildlife conflicts in South India. Geoforum. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2023.103892 
Blog Author: Dincy Mariyam
Key takeaways

  • Different perceptions on the negative interactions between humans and wildlife may influence how forests are managed. 
  • To better understand the guiding principles behind the views on human-animal conflict (HWC) and management, Chowdhury et al. 2023, interviewed foresters managing three adjacent protected areas spread across three states in the Western Ghats.
  • The authors found that foresters managing the same, contiguous landscape can have different perceptions about HWC, which may result in different ways of seeing and reacting to HWC.
  • Between 2015 and 2016, the scientists interviewed about a 100 foresters ranging in rank from the highest to the lowest at both the state and central government levels.
  • They identified five different belief systems towards managing conflict and the drivers of those conflicts among the foresters.  
  • These perceptions on HWC and forest management often differed between individual foresters due to their rank in the system, different lived experiences, and places of employment.

 

Foresters play a crucial role in forest management and wildlife conservation. Human wildlife conflict is a significant conservation challenge that frequently causes friction between the foresters and the public. Therefore, it is important to understand the underlying principles that guide foresters to make decisions about resolving HWC and managing forests. 

The research team, comprising scientists from the University of Alabama, USA and the Centre for Wildlife Studies examined the perspectives of foresters managing three geographically adjacent South Indian protected areas namely Bandipur National Park in Karnataka, Mudumalai National Park in Tamil Nadu, and Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary in Kerala. In India, the forest department is primarily responsible for managing HWCs. Between 2015 and 2016, the scientists interviewed about a 100 foresters ranging in rank from the highest (principal chief conservator of forest) to the lowest (forest watcher) at both the state and central government levels. The research conducted in adjacent protected areas presents an interesting study landscape due to different state-level administration and ecosystem types but similar negative interactions with people and wildlife.

Scientists found that even though forest departments might have specific ideas or priorities in managing HWCs, not all foresters think alike. The foresters hold diverse perspectives on managing HWCs, and that really matters for how those negative interactions are managed on the ground. The authors identified five distinct factors that shape the perspective on HWC and forest management. Factor 1: “Frustrated Forester” represents a group that responds to HWC through managerial approaches such as infrastructural development and altering wildlife habitats though developing wetlands, removing invasive species, and increasing forage inside forest. Factor 2: “Stewards of Wilderness” represents the views of those who were against human forest management of forests and believed that areas should be set aside exclusively for wildlife. Factor 3: “The forests are different, as are the foresters” is shaped from the experiences of individuals (such as anti-poaching watchers and guards) working on the ground in a specific location and observing ecological change over time. Factor 4: “Pragmatic Foresters & HWC Realists”  represents the group that is continually trying to find a way to balance their responsibilities to the Forest Department and the local communities. Therefore their views reflect that of Factor 1 and are also shaped by the geography and lived experiences. The views of Factor 5: “The Frustrated Forester” are in line with those of Factors 1 and 2, which include managerial approaches and acknowledge places that are exclusive to wildlife.   

The scientists note that the foresters’ understanding and mitigation of HWC stem from their position in the department hierarchy and geographic location. In addition, lived experiences and different contexts also shape forester perceptions. As a next step there is a need to investigate how knowledge about various foresters’ perspectives might be used to improve HWC management practices. Exchanging dialogues and knowledge among foresters holding different views can help support capacity building and encourage community engagement, develop more efficient, inclusive, and contextual HWC strategies.

 

You can access the original article here.

Keywords: forest department, human-wildlife conflict, India, perceptions, Western Ghats