By Samir Kumar Sinha on 13 October 2019.
Human-wildlife conflict is not a new problem. Conflicts due to elephants in Asia dates back to 300 BC, and crops and human life were protected from wildlife even in ancient civilisations. Conflict is present both in urban and rural areas. Monkeys create problem in urban settlements, while crop-raiding by ungulates and elephants, and loss of human and livestock lives to carnivore attacks in the rural landscape are omnipresent in our country. The problem has evolved with human society and has increased with population growth and subsequent conversion of natural habitats into other land-uses.
Government of India’s statistics reflects the loss of 1713 human lives due to human-elephant conflict, besides 373 cases of unnatural elephant deaths between 2015–2018. In 2017 alone, 227 people were killed by wild elephants in 16 states, with Assam having the highest 86 cases. The situation of human-large carnivore conflicts is equally alarming in the country. In many states, Nilgai and wild pig have been declared vermin to allow their hunting to get rid of the crop-raiding problem.
Recently a workshop on human-elephant conflict mitigation planning for Greater Manas Conservation Landscape in Assam was jointly organised by Bodoland Territorial Council, Wildlife Trust of India and Chester Zoo. Workshop deliberations indicated that finding solutions need multidimensional and adaptive management approaches at the landscape level, even considering the behavioural responses of human and animals as well. An apt example was related to elephant conflict in south India where the animal has developed the intelligence of breaching active barriers such as power fences, which the elephants in north-east India are yet to learn! This single factor would change the strategy of conflict management in two landscapes.
Human-wildlife conflict mitigation becomes challenging due to multiplicity in conflict situations which leads to varied reactions of people. The reactions generally depend on the species involved, risks of loss, people’s tolerance level, behavioural responses towards the species, traditional knowledge and skills of people about living in wildlife-rich areas, responses of government and other agencies to conflicts etc. For the time being, I am going anthropocentric by considering the situations when people are at a loss, and not dealing with unnatural mortalities of wildlife triggered by anthropogenic actions and reactions.
Though human-wildlife conflict is not a random process, deciphering the pattern of conflict is a complicated affair because of intricacy in the behavior of species and even individuals of the species, human behaviour, changes in seasonality of conflicts, cropping and livestock farming practices etc. Loss of habitat, ecological connectivity and human intrusion in wildlife habitats increase the exposure of human to wildlife and vice-versa, resulting in conflicts. Possibility of conflict is also influenced by behavior of individual animal—some are habitually involved in conflicts while others in the same population are rarely or not at all. Aged, sick and injured carnivores are more involved in cattle lifting cases. Availability and distribution of food in habitats often influence conflict incidences. In the case of carnivore conflicts, livestock lifting hotspots are often near low prey areas. However, having adequate foods available in habitats does not prevent wild animals venturing inside human-dominated areas. The nutritional quality of food items and energy cost in accessing them are the critical factors influencing crop raiding and livestock depredation by wild animals.
Fundamentally, human-wildlife conflict mitigation must target the drivers of conflict, which are often multiple. The responses to human-wildlife conflicts are either reactive or proactive. Ideally, conflict mitigation strategies should adopt both approaches. But, in India, the majority of actions are reactive, addressing emergencies in conflict situations and providing post-conflict support to the aggrieved. Capturing or eliminating problem animals, driving problem animals away and disbursing ex-gratia and relief are the most common interventions.
As a proactive measure, physical barriers – mostly fences and trenches between wildlife and human populations are created, many a time without assessing the effectiveness of these interventions in longer runs and effects these barriers would have on movement of animals in the landscape. Importantly, the integration of ecological and social considerations is often ignored or done with little conviction. The environmental actions targeting the problem in the habitat and connectivity, and reducing ecological stressor factors influencing animal behaviours are not knitted properly in conflict mitigation strategies.
The possible impacts of animal population increase; the outcome of protection and conservation measures, on change in human-wildlife conflicts are grossly overlooked, and mitigation of such effects are not planned. For example, human-carnivore conflicts are not perceived as an outcome of habitat improvement plans aiming at increasing herbivore population ultimately causing carnivores to increase in number! At the same time, there is no management prescription for reducing crop raiding that might creep in due to increased herbivores due to habitat enrichment.
Dealing with wildlife conflict issues demands knowledge and resources which might vary from one conflict species to other and location of conflicts. When conflicts occur in forests outside protected areas, responses of the forest administration are generally obtuse. If conflict location is outside forests, the situation becomes messier and more challenging for every agency, be it civil or the forest administration or conservation organisations responding to the situation.
Will this problem be solved when human-wildlife conflict is being brought under the purview of ‘disaster’? Governments want to synergise multi-agency efforts in addressing the issue. Recently, Uttar Pradesh (UP) has notified human-wildlife conflicts as state disaster as a result of which conflicts due to tiger, lion, leopard, hyena, wolf, elephant, crocodile, rhinoceros and wild pig are treated as ‘disasters’ under the purview of Disaster Management Act, 2005 which defines disaster as “a catastrophe, mishap, calamity or grave occurrence in any area, arising from natural or man-made causes, or by accident or by negligence which results in substantial loss of life or human suffering or damage to, and destruction of, property, or damage to, or degradation of, environment, and is of such a nature or magnitude as to be beyond the coping capacity of the community of the affected area”. Human-wildlife conflict aptly fits in the definition of disaster.
Will it solve the problem? Difficult to answer at this stage. The effects can only be assessed once all provisions of the Disaster Management Act for effective management of disasters and associated matters are put in place. A specific action plan on human-wildlife conflict mitigation is mandatory under Section 23 of the act. Vulnerability assessment and prevention and mitigation measures will be an integral part of the plan. Expectedly, enforcement of the Act would bring in elements of prevention, preparedness, response and relief and post-disaster reconstruction works in human-wildlife conflict cases too. Prevention of conflicts would require restoration of natural habitats and connectivity, which would have long-term benefits.
Declaring human-wildlife conflict a disaster would help reducing loss to human being if an effective action plan is in place and implemented systematically. But, it would be interesting to see how effectively it deals with the problem of crop-raiding by wild animals. Going by the tenets of disaster risk reduction, it should be expected that ecological triggers of human-wildlife conflict are also dealt suitably, as a preventive measure, and additional resources and essential knowledge is accrued to meet the objective of reducing loss in human-wildlife conflicts.
Wildlife Trust of India’s intervention in the terai habitat in Uttar Pradesh has been successful in integrating communities in human-big cats conflict responses, by creating and engaging local volunteers’ network – the Primary Response Team. The team relays information to villagers and forest department as well for an appropriate response, such as capturing, deterring or giving safe passes to the animal, as quick as possible to reduce chances of an encounter of people with the carnivore sighted in human-dominated areas, mainly sugarcane farms. The idea behind the approach is to empower communities to deal with the situations. Apparently, the initiative is also changing the perception of people, who now see human-wildlife conflict as their problem, and take optimum efforts at community level to deal with it. Of course, conservation agencies and the government departments are there to support them.
Clearly, human-wildlife conflict is not a new problem and communities had their own strategies of dealing with it, including the cropping pattern, preventive methods, tolerating the problem to an extent. Occasional elimination of animals by communities was also one of the elements of controlling their population. This method is not suggested in the light of the decline in the population of species and legal protection accorded to them. Possible ways to reduce conflict impacts on long–term basis, now, lie somewhere between ecological restoration based in scientific understandings and adopting measures which have the buy-in of the people at risk.
Samir Kumar Sinha, PhD, Head – Species Recovery and Protected Area Recovery at Wildlife Trust of India, Uttar Pradesh, India. Samir is also member of IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management.
Disclaimer: Views expressed here are his own and have nothing to do with the organisations he is affiliated.