Despite policies and efforts, Uttarakhand has lost 444 lives due to human-wildlife conflict since 2017. According to the India State of Forest Report 2019, tropical forests, which are complex socio-ecological entities, make up 45.44% of Uttarakhand’s geographical area. They are home to a major chunk of the world's biodiversity, including leopards, elephants, and tigers.
But what is human-animal conflict? This conflict occurs when the demands and actions of wildlife negatively affect humans, or vice versa. It is worth remembering here that communities living near protected areas are more vulnerable to this phenomenon. Having said that, instances of such conflict can be witnessed in areas that are far from protected areas as well and this is emerging as a concerning issue in the country.
Due to encroachment into forested and wildlife areas because of an increase in human population, along with the increase in demand for space and resources, people and wildlife interactions are taking the shape of conflicts Or at least this is the sole reason parroted in mainstream debates. This narrow understanding somehow validates the interventions by the state, which are unidimensional, and leaves little space to consider multidimensional impacts on both people and animals with inequalities associated with them. This perspective proves traditional adaptive strategies such as guards, fences, and compensation as insufficient and ineffective in building a sustainable solution.
Who is impacted by the conflict and how?
A study in Uttarakhand shows that crop devastation exacerbates food insecurity, and is the most obvious and noticeable effect on people living close to protected areas. Nearly 98% of survey respondents in the study complained that crop-raiding by wild animals negatively affected the overall food supply in their household, along with damages to fields, loss of livestock, loss of human lives, and loss of assets such as fencing and water pipes by wildlife, which leads to direct economic losses.
“Visible Costs” are felt differently depending on class and gender. For instance, large landholders or members of large households consider raiding as a moderate problem against those who have little land for crops, for whom it is a bigger issue.
Associated inequalities of the issue put women more vulnerable to getting attacked by leopards, tigers, bears, and elephants; their sufferings usually go unnoticed because they are gendered. Women frequently visit the nearby forest to collect fuelwood. Crop-raiding comes with a series of “hidden costs”, which includes an increased workload on women, along with household chores, and the responsibility to contribute to the fixing of assets destroyed by wildlife. The migration of men from their homes in villages in search of work due to economic loss caused by crop raids further increases the workload on women. Patrolling at night to safeguard crops, accidents, and fatalities instill fear among the villagers, causing mental and health issues in the Garhwal region of Uttarakhand.
Displacement of native species – food for local herbivores – due to the growth of invasive species results in loss of food source for animals. These invasive species cover the natural corridor of animals, which are usually dense, rough, and have thick undergrowth in the forest. This further amplifies the effect of human-wildlife conflict. Forest fires and tourism activity are other major cause that leads to food shortage, habitat destruction, and behavioural changes amongst animals.
Blind spots in policies
So far, the policies have tried to combat the effects by solely considering the visible costs, along with some mitigation measures to reduce the conflict. This includes the killing or translocation of animals, both of which are stressful to a wild animal and cause biological, physiological, and behavioural changes.
The other option that is used is to build solar fences and trench traps. Compensation is given against economic loss caused by crop damage, livestock loss, or injuries and deaths to the community. While the Uttarakhand government’s policies on human-wildlife conflict are not easily available for public access, it was witnessed from the study that no one had received compensation for crop loss and livestock losses as yet.
Despite increasing recognition of the importance of social, economic, and ecological considerations for managing human-wildlife conflict, little attention has been paid to how different interventions by the state might impact the overall situation.
Our world is becoming increasingly crowded; however, the tendency to see human-wildlife conflict solely due to encroachment and livelihood activities of local communities are fundamental drivers of most problems. This over-simplification of the problem needs to be resisted, especially since the protector of the people and animal structure is a centralized bureaucracy that is intended to prioritize certain actors, interests, and policies over those that may be locally required.
The issue of human-wildlife conflict cannot be resolved in isolation, since cultivated lands-habitation-forest form a mosaic that provides integrated livelihoods, which begs the question of rights on resources, as well as compensation as the sole solution. Rather, a planned, multidimensional approach that provides holistic and effective ways to reduce and minimize conflict in the long run. A good starting point would be to reassess the relationship between humans and wildlife since the quest to protect only one of the two is outdated; neither is sustainable independently.
Author is a second-year student, pursuing a Masters in Development at Azim Premji University.
Banner Image : Thinkstock
