Human Wildlife Conflicts

7/31/2019 Human Wildlife Conflicts

1/16

HUNTINGANDCOMPENSATIONASHUMAN WILDLIFECONFLICT

MITIGATIONMEASURES

."any interaction between humans andwildlife that results in negative impacts onhuman social, economic or cultural life, on theconservation of wildlife populations, or on theenvironment." (WWF, 2005)


2/16

INTRODUCTION

Importance of conservation

Only 19% of the biological diversity is documented (1.4million animals and 0.4 million plants)

Biodiversity - undiscovered treasure

Unprecedented biological species extinction in the lastthree century due to human activities (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005)

e.g.115 bird extinct against natural rate of 1 in 200 yrs

in situ conservation through formation of protectedarea

key stone species conservation Robert T Paine 1969


3/16

INDIA- CONSERVATIONTHROUGH

REGULATION

Indiaaccommodates 6% of world species diversity with just2.4% of the land

The wildlife protection Act 1972

Hunting of scheduled animal is prohibited in the sanctuary orelsewhere.

Declaration of Protected area in India - 67 to 897 (4.77% ofIndian geographical area) (WII, Dehradun)

Species recovery Elephant population22500 (Elephant task force 2011)

Wild animals are placed in different schedules based onthreats to their survival

Schedule I - minimum imprisonment of 2-7 years for hunting

Only Chief Wildlife warden is authorised to allow hunting of arouge wild animal least used provision


4/16

SCHEDULE I SCHEDULE II SCHEDULE III


5/16

WILDLIFE (PROTECTION ACT)1972

NEGATIVE REPERCUSSIONS

HUMAN WILDLIFE CONFLICT

69% of Protected area have human settlements (>3 million)(Kothari 1995).

Cost of conservation is borne unequally by those who live

near forest area. Farmers lost their right to defend his cropagainst crop raiding wild herbivore or to defend a wildcarnivore depredating on his livestock

Nearly 400 people and 100 elephants lose their lives due tothis conflict every year(Asian Elephant task force-2011) who pays for conservation and who is displaced

(or denied rights or compensated) for whose desire forwatching wildlife (Saberwal 1996).

Need for compensating them


6/16

RESEARCHAIM

How the adverse impacts of conservation

legislature can be reduced to the people living

near forest area and how their support for

conservation of biodiversity be garnered.

Evaluation of different wildlife management

practices followed for mitigating Human Wildlife

Conflicts in India and abroad.


7/16

REVIEWOFLITERATURE

HumanWildlifeConflict

MonetaryCompensation

Human attitude

towards wildlife

Factors governingHuman wildlife

conflicts

Modeling humanwildlife conflict

Policy initiatives andevaluation

Best practices forwildlife damage

mitigation

Extent of wildlife

damages


8/16

REVIEWOFLITERATURE

FACTORSGOVERNING HUMANWILDLIFE

CONFLICTS(WWFHWC MANUAL 2005)

Animal behaviour: changes from inquisitivehabit to opportunistic feeder and obligate crop raider

Migration

Factors within forest area overgrazing, lack of fodder

human interference- collection of honey

DevelopmentMining, railway, tourism,

Factors outside forest area Vanishing buffers

Cultivation of calorie rich crops abutting forest,

Inefficiency and abuse of compensation procedures

Trade in wildlife products,


9/16

REVIEWOFLITERATURE

EXTENTOFWILDLIFEDAMAGES

Households lost 12% of livestock holding (Rs.2645/hh/yr =

14% annual income) to tiger/ leopard and 14% (0.82 tonne)

of grains produced (11% annual income) to elephants.( Bhadra Tiger Reserve in Karnataka, 1996 -1999 by M.D.Madhusudan,

2003)

Around Kenyas Tsavo national park, wildlife attacks

claimed 2.4% of range stock annually. This predation costs

the ranches $ 8749 per annum estimated economic value.

Each lion cost ranchers approximately $290 per year in

depredations (Bruce D. Patterson et al, 2004).

Loss is substantial


10/16

REVIEWOFLITERATURE..

MONETARYCOMPENSATION(PHILIP J.NYHUS, 2003)

Visibility, Populist

measure

Immediate relief to

victims

Gains support to

conservation

Redistribution of cost

of conservation

Do not address theproblem

Ever increasing demandfor compensation

Information asymmetry

Elaborate verificationprocess

Bureaucracy and its

irresponsiveness Conservation is doubtful

as it encouragesagriculture in wildlife richarea

Advantages Disadvantages


11/16

REVIEWOFLITERATURE..

COMPENSATIONINEFFICIENCY

Difficult to monitor - Information asymmetry

Ability to change the outcome - moral hazard

Difficult to verifyBotswana - exaggeration of claims - Only 25%of the loss is compensated by the Govt.

Yellowstone National park, USA.- Market price to the verified case ofsheep death and half of the market price for the unverified loss - -(Philip J.Nyhus, 2003)

India - Maximum prescribed limits to compensation

Delay in payments

How much to pay - Switzerland pays full potential market value

even if immature livestock is killed by lynx or wolf. Overpayment9 times -Sheep kill by wolfSwitzerland

UnderpaymentVerification resulted in compensating only half of thelosses of livestock due to Grizzly bear predation- Wyoming, USA (Scott.E.Hygnstrom, 1985)

Pay more for successful conservation programme


12/16

REVIEWOFLITERATURE

BESTPRACTICESINWILDLIFEDAMAGE

MITIGATION

Scientific Culling

PreventionTrench,

Electric fence Translocation

Advance (Performance)

paymentSweden - based onthe no. of Wolf dens in the area,compensation for reindeerpredation is paid to ranchers(Philip J.Nyhus, 2003)

Compensation

On the spot

compensation(Corbett Foundation)

Grain for

grain (Elephant task

force 2011)

Ex ante measures Ex post measures


13/16

INNOVATIONS

ABATEMENTLINKEDCOMPENSATION

The Wisconsin Abatement and Claims Programme

(WDACP)

compensates the farmers for the damages of black

bear, geese and deer.

the abatement efforts taken by the farmer is linked tohis eligibility and quantum of compensation. Tailor

made, recommended electric fence for the farmland

erected on 50:50 share between land owner and

county government.

culling to sustainable limitsfour lakh deer

population hunted in 2009 (Wisconsin Dept. of Nat. Res.)

Revenue from hunting permit for crop insurance.

(Scott.E.Hygnstrom, 1985).


14/16

INNOVATIONS

PARTICIPATORYAPPROACHTOMITIGATION

Snow leopard conservation in Himachal Pradesh / Jammuand Kashmir / Pakisthan

Eco-tourism centre run by village committees.

The earnings from the ecotourism is kept with committee

Committee has collected subscription from livestock owners Uses revenue from both to compensate the farmer who

looses his livestock to the leopard..

(Shafqat Hussain -2003)

Wyanad Wildlife Sanctuary - Ramballi settlement Community participation for maintenance of electric

fences

act as effective barriers against elephants - effective inkeeping elephants away from the crop fields


15/16

INNOVATIONS

POLICYINITIATIVESININDIA-

FARMERS RIGHTTOHUNTCROPRAIDING

ANIMALS ?

Nilgai

Wild boar

Madhya

Pradesh

2003 Punjab 2007

HP 2007


16/16

CONCLUSIONS

Cost of conservation is borne by a sectionof people

Cost of Wildlife damages is substantial

Compensation is inefficient,unsustainable

Sustainable (ex ante) Alternatives

Hunting, Ecotourism, Multiple methods,

Policy initiativesinnovations

Human Wildlife Conflicts

Documents

Transcript of Human Wildlife Conflicts