Every interaction need not be a conflict

Interactions between humans and wildlife gain importance daily. The point of contention is whether to increase available space for human habitation or to protect natural habitats for biodiversity.  Conflict between humans and wildlife is only a part of the larger spectrum of interactions. Unfortunately, conflict gets highlighted rather frequently, tipping the scale towards considering these interactions as   negative.  Over the years, Keystone Foundation has studied the awareness and perceptions people have of conflict across many settlements in the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve. An interesting observation is that the frequency of interactions does not necessarily imply a greater level of perceived conflict; rather, it is contingent on the nature of conflict itself. Wanting  to know more about scenarios in the field, rather than only depending on recorded information, Keystone  identified different stakeholders that directly or indirectly contribute towards negative interactions (and not just in rural landscapes but in urban areas  as well) and  engaged them in a discussion.

Keystone Foundation, in association with Nilgiri Natural History Society, conducted a series of Stakeholder Workshops on Human-Wildlife Interactions. The workshops were aimed at understanding ground level scenarios concerning negative interactions (conflict) between humans and wildlife. Through these workshops Keystone brought together farmers, the Forest Department, the municipality, the media, and tourism agencies to discuss various concerns and problems they might be facing. The idea was to explore methods of better collaboration between them to minimise the impact on the environment and to promote co-existence. These workshops were conducted in 5 locations across the Western Ghats in Tamil Nadu and Kerala and included Wayanad, Theni, Kotagiri, Coonoor and Kodaikanal.  Each workshop offered interesting insights into how interactions between humans and wildlife were taking place.

It was observed that there were different levels of awareness about procedures and regulations concerning human wildlife interactions. For instance, in Wayanad, high levels of awareness and frequent interactions between farmers and the forest department enabled easier handling of issues; however, the greater frequency of conflicts put this rapport at risk.  In Theni there was an interesting alternate perspective suggestive of strengthening communication between the Forest Department and other stakeholders (especially farmers). Awareness concerning laws and procedures governing interactions between humans and wildlife was not high among different stakeholders, especially the farmers?)

With each workshop, one gained deeper and newer insights into the various factors contributing towards negative interactions. Apart from the awareness of different laws there is also a need to highlight co-existence and work towards creating models that enable this. Conducting awareness camps might be an option but this needs to be supported by other activities and measures. Another possibility is the installation of basic warning systems to notify the proximity of large animals. A long term measure is to collect daily observations from the local residents and workers of an area about the paths used most frequently by animals, and then securing the path and any natural resource in the vicinity used by the animals. A combination of all these methods, and stressing those aspects that might suit the location, might work best.