HUNTING AND COMPENSATION AS HUMAN WILDLIFE CONFLICT

MITIGATION MEASURES

."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." (WWF, 2005)

INTRODUCTION

Importance of conservation
Only 19% of the biological diversity is documented (1.4
million animals and 0.4 million plants) Biodiversity - undiscovered treasure

Unprecedented biological species extinction in the last three 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 protected area key stone species conservation Robert T Paine 1969

INDIA - CONSERVATION THROUGH

REGULATION

India accommodates 6% of world species diversity with just 2.4% of the land
The wildlife protection Act 1972

Hunting of scheduled animal is prohibited in the sanctuary or elsewhere. Declaration of Protected area in India - 67 to 897 (4.77% of Indian geographical area) (WII, Dehradun) Species recovery

Elephant population 22500 (Elephant task force 2011)

Wild animals are placed in different schedules based on threats to their survival Schedule I - minimum imprisonment of 2-7 years for hunting Only Chief Wildlife warden is authorised to allow hunting of a rouge wild animal least used provision

SCHEDULE I

SCHEDULE II

SCHEDULE III

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 crop against crop raiding wild herbivore or to defend a wild carnivore depredating on his livestock

Nearly 400 people and 100 elephants lose their lives due to this conict every year (Asian Elephant task force-2011)

who pays for conservation and who is displaced (or denied rights or compensated) for whose desire for watching wildlife (Saberwal 1996).

Need for compensating them

RESEARCH AIM
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.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Monetary Compensation
Extent of wildlife damages Best practices for wildlife damage mitigation Human attitude towards wildlife

Human Wildlife Conflict

Factors governing Human wildlife conflicts

Policy initiatives and evaluation

Modeling human wildlife conflict

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

FACTORS GOVERNING HUMAN WILDLIFE

CONFLICTS
Animal
(WWF HWC MANUAL 2005)

Migration

habit to opportunistic feeder and obligate crop raider

behaviour: changes from inquisitive

Factors within forest area overgrazing, lack of fodder human interference- collection of honey Development Mining, 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,

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

EXTENT OF WILDLIFE DAMAGES

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

REVIEW OF LITERATURE..

MONETARY COMPENSATION
Advantages

(PHILIP J.NYHUS, 2003)

Disadvantages

Visibility, Populist measure Immediate relief to victims Gains support to conservation Redistribution of cost of conservation

Do not address the problem Ever increasing demand for compensation Information asymmetry Elaborate verification process Bureaucracy and its irresponsiveness Conservation is doubtful as it encourages agriculture in wildlife rich area

REVIEW OF LITERATURE..

COMPENSATION INEFFICIENCY

Difficult to monitor - Information asymmetry Ability to change the outcome - moral hazard Difficult to verify Botswana - exaggeration of claims - Only 25% of the loss is compensated by the Govt. Yellowstone National park, USA.- Market price to the verified case of sheep 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.

Overpayment 9 times -Sheep kill by wolf Switzerland Underpayment Verification resulted in compensating only half of the losses of livestock due to Grizzly bear predation- Wyoming, USA

(Scott.E.Hygnstrom, 1985)

Pay more for successful conservation programme

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

BEST PRACTICES IN WILDLIFE DAMAGE

MITIGATION
Ex ante measures Ex post measures

Scientific Culling Prevention Trench, Electric fence Translocation

Compensation On the spot compensation

(Corbett Foundation)

Advance (Performance) payment Sweden - based on

the no. of Wolf dens in the area, compensation for reindeer predation is paid to ranchers
(Philip J.Nyhus, 2003)

Grain for grain

(Elephant task force 2011)

INNOVATIONS ABATEMENT LINKED COMPENSATION

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 to his 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 limits four lakh deer population hunted in 2009 (Wisconsin Dept. of Nat. Res.) Revenue from hunting permit for crop insurance.
(Scott.E.Hygnstrom, 1985).

INNOVATIONS PARTICIPATORY APPROACH TO MITIGATION

Snow leopard conservation in Himachal Pradesh / Jammu and 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 in keeping elephants away from the crop fields

INNOVATIONS POLICY INITIATIVES IN INDIA -

FARMERS RIGHT TO HUNT CROP RAIDING ANIMALS ?

Nilgai Wild boar

Madhya Pradesh 2003 Punjab 2007 HP 2007

CONCLUSIONS
Cost of conservation is borne by a section of people Cost of Wildlife damages is substantial Compensation is inefficient, unsustainable Sustainable (ex ante) Alternatives Hunting, Ecotourism, Multiple methods, Policy initiatives innovations