Human wildlife conflict and its mitigations

Human–wildlife conflict refers to the interaction between wild animals and people and the
resultant negative impact on people or their resources, or wild animals or their habitat. It occurs
when growing human populations overlap with established wildlife territory, creating reduction
of resources or life to some people and/or wild animals. The conflict takes many forms ranging
from loss of life or injury to humans, and animals both wild and domesticated, to competition for
scarce resources to loss and degradation of habitat.

Conflict management strategies earlier comprised lethal control, translocation, regulation of

population size and preservation of endangered species. Recent management approaches attempt
to use scientific research for better management outcomes, such as behaviour modification and
reducing interaction. As human-wildlife conflicts inflict direct, indirect and opportunity costs,
the mitigation of human-wildlife conflict is an important issue in the management of biodiversity
and protected areas.

Human–wildlife conflict is defined by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) as "any
interaction between humans and wildlife that results in negative impacts on human social,
economic or cultural life, on the conservation of wildlife populations, or on the
environment.Fund for Nature Southern African Regional Programme Office . The Creating Co-
existence workshop at the 5th Annual World Parks Congress (8–17 September 2003, Montreal)
defined human-wildlife conflict in the context of human goals and animal needs as follows:[2]
“Human-wildlife conflict occurs when the needs and behavior of wildlife impact negatively on
the goals of humans or when the goals of humans negatively impact the needs of wildlife."

A 2007 review by the United States Geological Survey defines human-wildlife conflict in two
contexts; firstly, actions by wildlife conflict with human goals, i.e. life, livelihood and life-style,
and, secondly, human activities threaten the safety and survival of wildlife. However, in both
cases, outcomes are decided by human responses to the interactions.[3]

The Government of Yukon defines human-wildlife conflict simply, but through the lens of
damage to property, i.e. "any interaction between wildlife and humans which causes harm,
whether it’s to the human, the wild animal, or property." Here, property includes buildings,
equipment and camps, livestock and pets, but does not include crops, fields or fences. WAP

History
Human–wildlife conflicts have occurred throughout man's prehistory and recorded history.
Amongst the early forms of human-wildlife conflict is the predation of the ancestors of
prehistoric man by a number of predators of the Miocene such as saber-toothed cats, leopards,
spotted hyenas amongst others.[4]

Fossil remains of early hominids show evidence of predation; the Taung Child, the fossilised
skull of a young Australopithecus africanus, is thought to have been killed by an eagle from the
distinct marks on its skull and the fossil having been found amongst egg shells and remains of
small animals.[5]

A Plio-Pleistocene horned crocodile, Crocodylus anthropophagus, whose fossil remains have

been recorded from Olduvai Gorge, was the largest predator encountered by prehistoric man, as
indicated by hominid specimens preserving crocodile bite marks from these sites.[6]

The advent of farming and animal husbandry of the Neolithic Revolution increased the scope of
conflict between humans and animals. The crops and the produce formed an abundant and easily
obtained food source for wild animals. Wild herbivores competed with domesticated ones for
pasture. In addition, they were a source for diseases which affected livestock. The livestock
attracted predators which found them an easy source to prey on. The inevitable human reaction
was to eliminate such threats to agriculture and domesticated animals. In addition, land was
converted to agricultural and other uses and forests cleared, all of which impacted wild animals
adversely. A number of animal species were eliminated locally or from parts of their natural
range. The deliberate or accidental introduction of animals in isolated island animal communities
have caused extinction of a large number of species.[7]

Nature of human-wildlife conflicts

Causes

As human populations expand into wild animal habitats, natural wildlife territory is displaced.
Reduction in the availability of natural prey/food sources leads to wild animals seeking alternate
sources. Alternately, new resources created by humans draw wildlife resulting in conflict. The
population density of wildlife and humans increase with overlaps in geographical areas used
increasing their interaction thus resulting in increased physical conflict. Byproducts of human
existence offer un-natural opportunity for wildlife in the form of food and sheltered interference
and potentially destructive threat for both man and animals. Competition for food resources also
occurs when humans attempt to harvest natural resources such as fish and grassland pasture.
Another cause of conflict comes from conservation biased toward flagship or game species that
often threatens other species of concern [8]

Outcomes of conflict

Human–wildlife conflict occurs with various negative results. The major outcomes of human-
wildlife conflict are:[9]

 Injury and loss of life of humans and wildlife [10]

 Crop damage, livestock depredation, predation of managed wildlife stock.
 Damage to human property.
 Trophic cascades.
 Destruction of habitat.
 Collapse of wildlife populations and reduction of geographic ranges.[11]
One of the initiators of the concept of man-animal conflict was Das and Guha.[12] They described
the two-sided impacts of this conflict. From one side, the source of conflict is the restriction on
the local people to access forest resources. On the other side, the source of conflict is the damage
incurred to them by wild animals.

Hidden Dimensions of Conflict

Human wildlife conflict also has a range of 'hidden' dimensions that are not typically factored in
when the focus is on visible impacts. These can include health impacts, opportunity and
transaction costs.[13] Case studies include work on elephants in northeast India, where elephant-
man interactions are seen to lead to cases of increased imbibing of alcohol by crop guardians
with resultant enhanced mortality in encounters.,[14] and issues related to gender in northern
India.[15]

Conflict resolution or management

The aim of conflict resolution or management is to reduce the potential for human-wildlife
conflicts in order to protect life and limb, safety and security of animal populations, habitat and
general biodiversity, and also to minimise damage to property. The preference is always for
passive, non-intrusive prevention measures but often active intervention is required to be carried
out in conjunction.[16]

Mitigation & Management techniques

Management techniques of wildlife are of two types. The first type are the traditional techniques
which aim to stop, reduce or minimize conflict by controlling animal populations in different
ways. Lethal control has the longest history but has major drawbacks. Other measures, less
costly in terms of life, are trans-location, regulation and preservation of animal populations.
Modern methods depend upon the ecological and ethological understanding of the wildlife and
its environment to prevent or minimize conflict; examples being behavioural modification and
measures to reduce interaction between humans and wildlife.

Potential solutions to these conflicts include electric fencing, land use planning, community-
based natural resource management (CBNRM), compensation, payment for environmental
services, ecotourism, wildlife friendly products, or other field solutions.[17]

In efforts to reduce human-wildlife conflict, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) has partnered
with a number of organizations to provide solutions around the globe. Their solutions are tailored
to the community and species involved. For example, in Mozambique, communities started to
grow more chili pepper plants after making the discovery that elephants dislike and avoid plants
containing capsaicin. This creative and effective method prevents elephants from trampling
community farmers' fields as well as protects the species.
When the interests of human beings and wildlife are at odds, sometimes nobody wins. In
rural India, several million people rely on crops and livestock for income. A roaming tiger,
leopard, elephant, or pig can pose a threat to their livelihood, not to mention human life.

"It's not a one-sided story. "If you're living in a city, it sounds romantic to have a tiger on your
property. For people who live next to these animals, it's a huge burden."

A classic catch-22, protection measures and conservation policies of the last 30 years have
helped to stabilize threatened species. At the same time, they have led to more conflicts in areas
with high densities of people.

The conflict plays out along the "hard edges," areas where nature reserves end and villages
begin. Animals might stray from the parks due to dwindling prey, competition among their
species, or because sugarcane and rice are tasty.

Farmers vs. Wildlife

In a recent study published in the peer-reviewed journal Biological Conservation, Karanth and
researchers surveyed almost 2,000 Indian households across 7,449 square kilometers (2,876
square miles). Most households relied on agriculture, and all were located within a 10-kilometer
(6-mile) radius of five natural reserves in the Western Ghats, a mountain range running along
India's west coast.

Of the surveyed households, 64 percent reported crop loss and 15 percent reported loss of
livestock due to straying wildlife. About a third reported their losses to the government for
compensation.

"Because of their geographic location, they are always going to be vulnerable to this kind of
conflict," says Karanth, who is a 2012 National Geographic emerging explorer and who received
support for the research from the National Geographic Society as the organization's 10,000th
grantee.

National and international newspapers have covered irate landowners poisoning leopards and
villagers surrounding tigers in mobs, but Karanth found that most households were tolerant of
animals—as long as no human being was injured or killed.

In fact, people used mitigation tactics to dissuade visits from their wild neighbors. To prevent
livestock loss, they kept close watch on animals, used guard dogs, and put up fencing, either
solar-powered electrified fences or wood.

To prevent crop raiding, almost half of the households built platforms on stilts and then stayed
up every night for three to six months to survey their fields. They used drums, bells, and
firecrackers to scare raiders. Karanth heard stories of people planting a row of chilies to try to
buffer their sugarcane.
The tactics lowered crop and livestock loss but couldn't prevent it in the long run, according to
the study. Animals got used to harsh noises, knocked down fences, and came back when no one
was looking.

"Whether you put up a fence or dig a ditch, spend time sitting up at night, or spend financial
resources, almost nothing seems to be working," says Karanth.

Still, the researchers found that people on the periphery of these lush landscapes remain
relatively tolerant of wildlife.

Respect for Animals

Karanth remembers visiting a woman's house in Bandipur National Park. Every year, pig raids
destroyed some of the woman's crops. "Does it not make you angry?" Karanth asked her. The
woman replied, "This is as much their home as it is ours."

This tolerance—often with cultural and religious roots—has allowed India to remain a home to
charismatic animals struggling for survival, says Karanth. Viewing elephants, tigers, and
leopards as pests or threats will only escalate the human-wildlife conflict, she says.

Instead of blindly investing in mitigation practices, Karanth recommends that measures be

scientifically evaluated and monitored to find out which have long-term success. Conflict
prevention, such as live monitoring interventions, could also be improved with maps that were
developed during the survey that identified vulnerable villages.

Karanth believes that the Indian government should improve the filing, verification, and
processing of compensation to families that report crop or livestock loss. Typically, rural
households struggle to provide photos to document damages and must wait a year to receive
compensation, except in cases of human death or injury, she says. As a result, many households
opt out of reporting their losses.

Another idea may be to market the farms as wildlife tourism destinations. According to Karanth,
"People can still live on the land, and wildlife would not be seen as a negative outcome but a
positive one. Let's get people to feel pride that we still have these animals in India."