Study throws light on how to reduce human-wildlife conflicts

It also calls for efficient processing of loss claims

A file photo of a herd of elephants being chased away by villagers at Nanjangud near Mysuru.

A new study by the Centre for Wildlife Studies (India) on human-wildlife conflict management and compensation indicates that conflicts can be reduced by integrating early warning systems with simpler damage-prevention practices such as improving fencing of crops or better livestock husbandry in conjunction with more efficient processing of claims.

The findings are relevant as the Mysuru–Kodagu–Hassan belt is a hotbed for conflict situation that has led to both human and wildlife casualties, and the tolerance of people living on the forest fringes towards wildlife is running out.

The study, conducted by Krithi K. Karanth, Shriyam Gupta and Anubhav Vanamamalai from the CWS (India), has been published as a paper titled ‘Compensation payments, procedures and policies towards human-wildlife conflict management: Insights from India’ in the journal Biological Conservation.

A release said this study provides insights gained from examining tens of thousands of cases of human-wildlife conflict compensation payments made by the Indian government across 29 States from 2010 to 2015 and evaluates their policy effectiveness.

The scientists found that among the 29 States, 22 (76%) compensated for crop loss, 18 (62%) for property damage, 26 (90%) for livestock depredation, and 28 (97%) for human injury or death. In 2012–13, as many as 78,656 conflict incidents were reported from 18 States, of which 36,091 incidents were from Karnataka.

Policies lacking

The study examined the effectiveness of compensation payments made by the Indian government for human-wildlife conflicts. Despite a significant mandate supporting compensation payments, the authors found a lack of policies in some States, while others had low payment amounts along with high transaction costs.

Hence the scientists have recommended that existing inconsistencies in eligibility, application, assessment, implementation, and payment procedures for compensation across States be addressed in order to empower people to cope with their losses.

This, they affirmed, was critical to ensure global conservation icons such as elephants and tigers thrive amid people in a high wildlife, high conflict country. The wildlife involved include elephants that flatten farmer’s fields, tigers and leopards that prey on cows and goats, and other species ranging from crocodiles to monkeys that cause property damage and injury.

The study said ensuring that compensation reaches all affected people requires standardising these processes in a transparent and efficient manner, while also monitoring its perceived benefits to wildlife conservation.

The lead author, Dr. Karanth, said, “India is a high wildlife and high conflict country; the reason for wildlife persistence is the socio-cultural-religious tolerance in people. Empowering people to cope with their losses is needed if we are to see global conservation icons such as elephants and tigers thrive amidst people.”