Q2.c. Man and wildlife conflicts are ever increasing. Discuss its causes, consequences and remedies. 15 2025

Introduction

Human-wildlife conflict represents one of the most pressing contemporary challenges to conservation, sustainable development, food security, and human well-being. Man-wildlife conflict (HWC) refers to encounters between humans and wildlife leading to negative consequences—crop raiding, livestock predation, property damage, injuries, and deaths for both humans and animals. According to WWF and UN Environment Programme data, globally HWC affects more than seventy-five percent of world’s wild cat species, large carnivores (polar bears, Mediterranean monk seals), and large herbivores (elephants). In India alone, government data for 2022-23 recorded eight thousand eight hundred seventy-three wild animal attacks, with four thousand one hundred ninety-three caused by elephants, one thousand five hundred twenty-four by wild boars, and two hundred forty-four by leopards. Between 2014-2015 and 2018-2019, over five hundred elephants were killed due to human-wildlife conflict, and two thousand three hundred sixty-one people were killed by elephants during the same period. These statistics underscore escalating conflict with potential for complete biodiversity collapse and rural livelihood destruction unless comprehensive interventions address root causes and foster coexistence.

---

1. Causes of Man-Wildlife Conflict

Human Population Growth and Habitat Encroachment: Global human population exceeded eight billion in 2022, tripling since 1950. As populations expand, settlements encroach into wildlife habitats, converting natural ecosystems into agricultural land and urban infrastructure. Protected area boundaries become increasingly permeable as human settlements expand into adjacent zones. This demographic expansion directly reduces wildlife range, fragments habitats into isolated patches, and creates persistent human-animal contact zones where conflicts are inevitable. In Africa, human population growth has led to encroachment into wildlife habitats, constriction of species into marginal habitat patches, and direct competition for resources.

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation: Agricultural expansion converts natural habitats into croplands; mining, logging, and oil exploration destroy ecosystems; roads and hydroelectric projects fragment remaining habitats. The Kaziranga–Karbi Anglong landscape in Assam exemplifies this: highways and tea plantations have fragmented elephant corridors, forcing animals into human-dominated areas seeking food. Fragmentation isolates populations, reducing genetic diversity and increasing inbreeding. Wildlife loses access to traditional food sources and migratory pathways, forcing them into agricultural areas where crop-raiding becomes survival mechanism rather than choice.

Agricultural Expansion and Crop Preference: Conversion of natural habitats into farms removes wild food sources, compelling animals to feed on cultivated crops—which are often more nutritious and concentrated than wild vegetation. In Kakum Conservation Area (Ghana), elephants raided approximately seventy percent of food crops from five hundred households, costing farmers approximately four hundred fifty dollars each—devastating for subsistence farmers. Maize, cassava, and plantain—critical food security crops—are heavily raided because their nutritional content attracts wildlife. Temporal patterns show crop-raiding peaks coincide with crop maturation: June showed peak elephant raids (2.4 raids per kilometer in Kakum) coinciding with maize maturation, while October recorded minimal raiding (0.1 raids per kilometer).

Climate Change and Resource Competition: Climate change alters rainfall patterns, droughts, and temperature regimes, forcing wildlife migration in search of water and food. In more than eighty percent of human-wildlife conflict case studies, temperature and rainfall changes were primary conflict drivers. Kenya’s severe drought in 2022 caused approximately six thousand giraffe deaths; surviving animals compete intensely with humans for scarce water, leading to lethal human-giraffe confrontations. Climate-induced resource scarcity intensifies competition; humans and wildlife vie for identical water sources during droughts, escalating antagonism. Rising temperatures trigger ecosystem regime shifts where wildlife distribution patterns fundamentally change, unpredictably placing species into human zones.

Infrastructure Development and Habitat Barriers: Roads, railways, dams, and mines dissect wildlife habitats, creating impenetrable barriers blocking animal movement. Siltation from dams alters riverine ecosystems; noise and pollution from infrastructure disrupt communication and behavior. Animals attempting to cross barriers face vehicle strikes; fragmented populations cannot interbreed, leading to genetic isolation and demographic decline.

Livestock and Agriculture Intensification: Expanding livestock populations compete with wild herbivores for grazing land and water. Livestock farming excludes wild herbivores from traditional ranges, forcing them into marginal areas with insufficient forage. Conversely, expanding wildlife populations following conservation success (e.g., nilgai and blackbuck population recovery) create increased conflict as more animals venture into agricultural lands, accidentally attacking farmers or causing crop damage.

---

2. Consequences of Man-Wildlife Conflict

Human Casualties and Economic Loss: Direct confrontations between humans and wildlife produce injuries and fatalities. In India’s Kailash Sacred Landscape (1984-2016), Asiatic black bears and common leopards caused 123 incidents of human injury/death, with maximum incidences (12) recorded in 2011. Crop raiding causes catastrophic agricultural losses: Kakum farmers lose approximately 70 percent of food crops annually; in Khaptad National Park (Nepal), all surveyed 304 households experienced crop raiding over two years; 55.5% faced livestock predation; 2% experienced attacks causing death or injury. Economic impact at household level is devastating—for subsistence farmers dependent entirely on agricultural income, loss of an entire season’s harvest represents difference between self-sufficiency and starvation.

Food Insecurity and Poverty Exacerbation: Crop losses directly undermine food security; destroyed cassava, maize, and plantain reduce household nutrition and subsistence. For rural households practicing subsistence farming, wildlife-induced crop losses represent 10-15% of household income in some regions. Repeated losses push families from poverty toward destitution, forcing rural abandonment and migration to urban slums. A 47-year-old Wayanad farmer trampled by a radio-collared elephant exemplifies the intersection of livelihood threat and safety risk.

Wildlife Population Decline and Extinction Risk: Retaliatory killing following crop raiding or livestock depredation eliminates wildlife populations. Over seventy-five percent of wild cat species experience conflict-related killing; large carnivores (lions, tigers, snow leopards, jaguars) face increased extinction pressure. In Himalayan regions, Asiatic black bears and common leopards experience intense persecution following human incidents. Habitat fragmentation compounds conflict effects by isolating populations, preventing genetic exchange, reducing population viability. Small populations become vulnerable to stochastic extinction events.

Ecosystem Disruption and Trophic Cascades: Removal of large carnivores (lions, leopards, tigers) through conflict-driven persecution disrupts food webs, allowing herbivore populations to explode, causing overgrazing, vegetation degradation, and ecosystem collapse. Loss of large herbivores alters plant community composition and nutrient cycling. Ecosystem service degradation includes reduced pollination, impaired nutrient cycling, altered water infiltration, and carbon sequestration disruption.

Social Tensions and Human-Human Conflict: Unequal distribution of conflict costs creates tensions between affected and unaffected communities. Farmers bearing crop losses resent wildlife conservation while urban populations benefit from wildlife existence without bearing costs. Competition for compensation funds creates intra-community conflict. Different stakeholder groups (herders, farmers, conservation organizations, governments) hold conflicting perspectives on wildlife management, generating social instability.

Psychological Trauma and Loss of Conservation Support: Traumatic encounters with dangerous wildlife (leopards, elephants, bears, crocodiles) cause psychological distress, fear, and anxiety. These negative experiences reduce community tolerance for wildlife, undermining conservation support. Communities perceiving wildlife as threats rather than assets oppose conservation measures, creating hostile environments for protected area management.

---

3. Remedies and Mitigation Strategies

Prevention-Based Approaches:

Habitat Management and Wildlife Corridors: Protecting and restoring natural habitats reduces wildlife need to encroach on human settlements. Creating wildlife corridors connecting fragmented landscapes enables population movement, genetic exchange, and migration. India’s National Wildlife Plan (2017-2031) acknowledges that fragmented habitats force animals into human settlements, exacerbating conflict; corridors mitigate this by maintaining continuous habitat networks. Wildlife Conservation Trust estimates that viable tiger populations require 80-100 individuals including 20 breeding females—unattainable in fragmented landscapes. Corridors enable populations to sustain genetic diversity, resilience to disease, and long-term viability.

Land-Use Planning and Spatial Zoning: Strategic land-use planning allocates space for wildlife, agriculture, and human settlement with minimal overlap. Buffer zones established around protected areas create transition areas where wildlife and humans interact under managed conditions. These buffer zones simultaneously protect core protected areas from human encroachment and provide communities benefits from conservation (timber, non-timber forest products, ecotourism employment). Communities in buffer zones participate in conservation while generating income, shifting wildlife perception from liability to asset.

Protection and Mitigation Strategies:

Fencing and Physical Barriers: Properly designed, constructed, and maintained fences can be nearly completely effective in preventing conflict. Electric fences, reinforced livestock enclosures, and beehive fences provide protection while maintaining wildlife access to habitats outside fenced areas. Fencing costs are modest: crocodile-proof harbor fences in Namibian Kasika conservancy cost approximately two hundred eighty-six dollars each. However, fencing requires continuous maintenance and does not address underlying causes.

Crop Protection Measures: Diversifying crops reduces vulnerability to raiding species with dietary preferences. Planting crops not preferred by wildlife (tea planted as buffer around Bwindi Impenetrable National Park) protects food security crops. Improved storage facilities reduce losses; noise-making devices, scarecrows, and watch dogs provide deterrence. These methods have moderate effectiveness; noise deterrence works temporarily before habituated animals ignore it.

Early Warning Systems: Technology-enabled monitoring—camera traps, GPS collars, WhatsApp alert networks, AI-powered systems—provide real-time wildlife location data, enabling communities to adopt protective measures before animals damage property. Early warning reduces unexpected encounters and fatalities. Systems combining traditional knowledge with modern technology enhance effectiveness: community scouts supplemented with camera traps provide comprehensive coverage.

Compensation and Insurance Schemes:

Direct Compensation: Government or community-managed compensation funds reimburse verified crop and livestock losses. Mobile-based damage documentation systems with GPS verification improve efficiency and reduce fraud. Timely compensation (within days, not months) builds community trust in compensation systems. However, compensation alone doesn’t address root causes; it treats symptoms while underlying conflict drivers persist.

Indirect Compensation—Benefit-Sharing: Tourism revenue-sharing programs distribute ecotourism income to wildlife-hosting communities. In Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, tourism revenue-sharing schemes ensure communities bearing human-gorilla conflict costs benefit financially from visitor spending. Alternative livelihood development—beekeeping (integrated with beehive fences), sustainable timber harvesting, medicinal plant cultivation—generates income reducing poverty-driven agricultural intensification.

Insurance Programs: Community-based natural resource management in Namibia’s conservancies pioneered self-insurance schemes where communities set aside funds for conflict losses while benefiting from wildlife exploitation licenses (hunting, tourism, resource collection). This approach makes wildlife economically valuable rather than exclusively costly.

Community-Based Approaches:

Community Education and Awareness: School-based education on coexistence with wildlife builds pro-conservation attitudes among youth. Farmer field schools disseminate practical skills for protecting crops and safely coexisting with wildlife. Media campaigns counteract fear-based narratives, promoting understanding of wildlife behavior and appropriate response protocols. Evidence from Mumbai’s leopard coexistence program demonstrates that reactive, fear-driven responses exacerbate conflict; science-based, proactive strategies reduce incidents and foster coexistence.

Community Conflict Response Teams: Establishing local wildlife conflict response teams with traditional authority (chiefs, headmen) integration enables rapid intervention when conflicts occur. Training teams in non-lethal conflict resolution (driving animals away, using beehive fences, maintaining alert protocols) reduces retaliatory killings. Voluntary community monitoring provides early detection of potential conflicts.

Inclusive Decision-Making and Social Justice: Ensuring affected communities participate in conservation planning and implementation builds buy-in and sustainable solutions. Addressing power imbalances between conservation organizations and local communities enables equitable benefit-sharing. Recognizing indigenous and local knowledge alongside scientific expertise creates culturally-appropriate solutions. Women’s participation in decision-making ensures gender-equitable outcomes, as women often bear disproportionate conflict burdens (crop labor, water collection in conflict-prone areas).

Voluntary Relocation with Genuine Incentives: Where alternative land and resources are available, voluntary community relocation to areas with better resource access and reduced wildlife overlap can resolve conflicts. Successful relocations (Melghat Tiger Reserve, India) require substantial benefits (improved access to resources, infrastructure, healthcare), participatory negotiation, and long-term livelihood support. Coercive relocation creates social dislocation and fails; voluntary programs respecting community agency succeed if benefits are genuine.

Ecosystem Restoration and Prey Base Enhancement:

Habitat Restoration: Replanting native vegetation, controlling invasive species (Lantana camara invasion in Indian corridors reduces visibility, exacerbating leopard-human encounters), and restoring water sources in wildlife habitats reduce animals’ need to enter human areas seeking food and water. Enhanced prey availability in protected areas reduces predator inclination to seek livestock.

Population Management: Controlling wildlife populations through sustainable harvesting in areas where populations exceed carrying capacity reduces conflict-driven by resource competition. Selective translocation of problem animals to less-populated regions alleviates local conflict while maintaining populations.

Technological Innovation and Science-Based Management:

Real-Time Monitoring and Data Integration: GPS collar tracking, camera trap networks, and AI-powered analysis provide precise wildlife distribution data, enabling predictive conflict prevention. Drone surveillance enables early detection of wildlife movements toward human settlements.

Predictive Modeling: Machine learning models integrating climate, land-use, population, and historical conflict data predict high-risk areas and seasons, enabling targeted interventions before conflicts escalate.

Adaptive Management and Resilience Building:

Monitoring and Evaluation: Systematic, long-term monitoring of conflict trends, intervention effectiveness, and community tolerance builds knowledge enabling adaptive management. Without monitoring, ineffective interventions persist while effective strategies go unrecognized.

Resilience-Based Coexistence: Rather than pursuing conflict-free states (impossible with coexisting populations), building resilience enables systems to absorb disturbances and recover. Key resilience elements include governance structures facilitating mutual adaptation, equitable benefit-sharing reducing economic burden inequity, and long-term commitment to coexistence beyond single interventions.

Institutional Reform and Governance Transformation:

Integrating Development and Conservation: Connecting sustainable development and biodiversity conservation ensures development doesn’t destroy ecosystems while conservation doesn’t impoverish communities. Recognizing HWC as development issue—not purely conservation concern—brings poverty-reduction perspectives to conflict management.

Multispecies Justice Frameworks: Considering both human rights and animal welfare in decision-making ensures solutions respect both communities and wildlife. Legal protections for wildlife corridors and movement rights enable coexistence.

---

4. Case Studies and Implementation Examples

Mumbai Leopard-Human Coexistence Model: Over fifteen years, Wildlife Conservation Society India demonstrated that science-based, collaborative approaches reduce conflict in world’s densest city hosting large carnivores. Research identifying leopard density, movement patterns, and conflict drivers informed state and national guidelines. Community collaboration with forest departments, educational institutions, and media promoted proactive strategies. Result: reduced fatal encounters, improved coexistence, informed policy.

Bwindi Impenetrable National Park (Uganda) Gorilla Conflict Management: Community conflict response teams (10 teams established in Nkuringo region) guard park boundaries, driving gorillas back when they enter village lands. Tea buffer planting protects food security crops. Tourism revenue-sharing ensures communities benefit from gorilla-derived income. Voluntary community engagement—not coercion—built wildlife tolerance.

Khaptad National Park (Nepal) Community Survey (2019): All three hundred four surveyed households experienced crop raiding; ninety-four percent engaged in mitigation measures (night guarding, noise-making, scarecrows, fencing, watch dogs). Two percent experienced attacks; yet majority supported wildlife conservation. This demonstrates communities accept conflict costs if involved in solutions and benefit-sharing.

Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve (Maharashtra, India) Buffer Zone Ecotourism: Youth employed as safari guides, drivers, and gate operators; houses converted to homestays; profits distributed to village communities. Wildlife transformed from threat to economic opportunity, building support for conservation. Buffer zone model proves replicable.

---

5. Limitations and Future Directions

Data Gaps: Systematic monitoring remains insufficient in many regions, hindering comprehensive understanding of conflict drivers and intervention effectiveness.

Funding Constraints: Developing countries with highest conflict levels lack resources for comprehensive mitigation, creating equity challenges.

Climate Change Acceleration: Warming-induced ecosystem shifts will intensify conflict faster than mitigation efforts can adapt without transformative interventions.

Institutional Barriers: Fragmented governance, inadequate coordination between conservation and development sectors, and limited community participation in decision-making obstruct integrated solutions.

---

Conclusion

Man-wildlife conflict represents convergence of habitat loss, human population growth, poverty, climate change, and inadequate governance creating unprecedented challenges to conservation and rural livelihoods. Single interventions addressing isolated aspects—compensation, fencing, protection—treat symptoms without addressing root causes; comprehensive, integrated approaches combining habitat protection, community engagement, equitable benefit-sharing, livelihood diversification, and adaptive governance offer pathways toward sustainable coexistence. Evidence from Mumbai, Bwindi, Khaptad, and Tadoba demonstrates that communities will coexist with wildlife when conflicts are managed, benefits are shared equitably, and decision-making is inclusive. Future success requires transformative institutional change recognizing HWC as development and justice issue demanding human rights and animal welfare consideration simultaneously. As global population and climate change intensify pressures on ecosystems, the choice before humanity is stark: invest now in coexistence infrastructure and transformative governance enabling both human and wildlife flourishing, or witness escalating conflict, rural collapse, and biodiversity extinction. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the former pathway as both ethically imperative and economically rational.