1. Projects

Human-Wildlife Coexistence

A man carrying sticks on his back walks along a path in a village

The future of wildlife—particularly large, emblematic species that share space with people—strongly depends on the willingness and capacity of those people to coexist with them. But what does it mean to “coexist”? Human-wildlife coexistence is a dynamic state in which the needs and interests of both humans and wildlife living in proximity to each other are generally met, though this coexistence may not be entirely free of negative interactions and may still contain some level of impact to both people and wildlife. Coexistence is especially dependent on a level of tolerance on the human side.

For millennia, humans have lived alongside wildlife. Human-wildlife conflict arises when the presence or behavior of wildlife poses a direct or perceived threat to people’s needs, interests, and safety.¹ It can often lead to disagreements between impacted groups of people on how to manage such conflicts. And as our planet becomes increasingly crowded, which is compounded by a decrease in space from accelerated climate change and habitat loss and increasing competition for resources, it is imperative that we find pathways to manage human-wildlife conflict and move towards some level of coexistence. Human-wildlife conflict is a significant threat to people’s wellbeing and leads to a decrease in their tolerance for conservation efforts.

What it means to share space with wildlife differs drastically from place to place and from species to species, which often makes moving toward coexistence a complex and ever-evolving target. To achieve some level of coexistence between people and wildlife, various stakeholders must partner together to address challenges and devise solutions that focus on the benefits of living alongside wildlife, especially for local communities, who are often the most directly negatively impacted by living with wildlife.

Moving from human-wildlife conflict to coexistence

Coexistence, by definition, is a relationship between people and wildlife and a state of being that lies on a spectrum.

The Human-Wildlife Coexistence Spectrum

 

The lower end of the spectrum

  • there are some levels of risk involved;
  • and there is a lower level of tolerance where people are conditionally willing to live with wildlife.

The higher end of the spectrum

  • there is little risk involved;
  • and tolerance is high.

 

Coexistence is possible, but we oversimplify it when we assume that the term automatically implies a peaceful or harmonious state. However “harmonious” or “peaceful” a situation may become is very context and species specific and prone to change over time. For instance, achieving coexistence at the higher end of the spectrum may be difficult with certain species, as risks will always be present despite effective management of human-wildlife conflict. Levels of coexistence, where people share space with wildlife, will be dynamic, with the potential for ongoing conflict and need for long term interventions. While with some species and scenarios it might be easier to achieve more enduring coexistence at the higher end of the spectrum, the reality is that it takes work to even begin to define what a “coexistence” environment may look like for a particular situation before starting to work toward that.

There are numerous examples from around the world of successful human-wildlife conflict management through multiple, integrated approaches that have created an environment for coexistence. This is largely achieved when the needs of people and the needs of wildlife are considered concurrently in management strategies and the benefits of living with wildlife are put into focus. It is important that sustainable development and biodiversity conservation strategies are connected and weighed against each other.

“The Conflict-Coexistence Continuum” What does it mean to achieve human-wildlife coexistence?

Attitudes toward wildlife change and can be challenging to anticipate because many factors are involved. While we do know that achieving coexistence is possible, it may not be achievable for all situations. This is particularly true in instances and with approaches that have failed to look at the drivers of the conflict and where long-term human-wildlife conflict management is absent. However, it is important to recognize that completely eradicating the potential for renewed human-wildlife conflict is not possible. Conflict is dynamic and will ebb and flow depending on how people respond to incidents. Attitudes and behaviors towards species can change over time and across space. To be successful, many different elements will need to work together over the long-term to create continuous opportunities and benefits for biodiversity and impacted communities. This is why, by definition, moving from conflict to coexistence is described as a continuum, in which neither conflict nor coexistence is locked at a fixed point.

 

A dynamic state of coexistence has been reached when ongoing negative interactions between people and wildlife can be addressed because there are management strategies and structures in place that work for the communities and all stakeholders involved, while allowing wildlife to thrive.

What does coexistence look like? How can it look different depending on the landscape and subjects in question?

Coexistence can look quite different from area to area, even with the same species, depending on how people and wildlife interact in that specific context. Culture, tradition, perceptions, and attitudes toward wildlife shape tolerance, which is central to achieving coexistence. The magnitude of “damage” caused by a species is just one factor that can shape local attitudes. People’s perception heavily influences how an interaction with wildlife is perceived (such as, if it will be considered negative and result in conflict).

Below, as included in A Future for All: The need for human-wildlife coexistence, are some examples and stories of what coexistence can look like in different contexts from across the globe, depending on the communities, species, issues, and management approaches:

Local communities are central to the survival of wildlife

Two young tigers run alongside a riverbank in Nepal

In India’s Pilibhit Tiger Reserve, tigers frequently wander into the agricultural landscape beyond forest boundaries. The tiger population is thriving here, and tigresses have given birth to cubs and raised successive litters in agricultural fields set amidst villages only a few kilometers away from the tiger reserve. Coexistence in such situations can be brittle and shift to fear when people are injured or killed. More than 60 people have lost their lives to tigers around Pilibhit Tiger Reserve in the past decade. The aftermath of such events can culminate in mob violence; for example, community members have set fire to the camps and vehicles of the Forest Department, whose mandate is to manage wildlife, and retaliatory killing of tigers by poisoning and other means is periodically reported.

And yet, despite these devastating losses and occasional eruptions of anger, the public appears to be benevolent toward tigers that do not cause harm. In Pilibhit, tolerance has been fostered through committed efforts to address public grievances and fears through conflict management. When a tiger starts killing people, the management authorities quickly track down and capture the “problem tiger”. For trust and tolerance to be maintained, communities that share space with tigers need continued support, and authorities must speedily mitigate economic losses from the predation of livestock. Work is underway to build a comprehensive conflict management strategy for Pilibhit, including streamlined rapid response mechanisms that involve multiple government departments and other agencies.

Education and public awareness can have cascading impacts

big brown bear

With more than 450,000 black bears and 25,000 grizzly bears, there are far more bears in Canada than in all other countries in the world combined. Causes of human-bear conflicts are varied and complex. In some areas, land use changes are causing habitat fragmentation and a rise in human-bear conflict. A major movement towards coexistence with bears began in the town of Revelstoke (8,000 inhabitants) in the 1990s. Conflicts with both black and grizzly bears were frequent, as bears were attracted to food in dump sites, garbage bins, gardens, and by ripening fruit and even pet food. Safety concerns resulting from close bear encounters led many people to lodge complaints with conservation officers who then responded by killing the black bears and relocating or killing the grizzly bears. Between 1986 and 1995, an average of 12 grizzly bears and 31 black bears were either killed or moved annually. The frequent killing of bears upset many other citizens of Revelstoke, and so the Bear Awareness Society was formed to reduce conflicts with bears. A “Bear Awareness” coordinator was hired to lead an education program to raise public awareness of bear behavior and share information about how to prevent and respond to bear encounters. The town passed and enforced garbage and fruit tree management by-laws, and bear-resistant garbage containers gradually replaced the older models. Over the 25 years since the Bear Awareness Society was established, human safety has significantly improved and, on average, fewer than one grizzly bear every two years and seven black bears per year have been removed.

Those most impacted by conflict are those who should most benefit from solutions

mountain gorilla in forest

Community-based ecotourism can play an important role in distributing benefits and costs of living with wildlife. For sustainable development programs to succeed, those involved must have a thorough understanding of the socio-economy and culture of the target groups. Sustainable ecotourism can channel income generated from people visiting wildlife-rich areas to those people who bear the costs of living with wildlife. Communities at the boundary of Bwindi Impenetrable National Park have faced high levels of crop damage caused by wildlife, especially gorillas, in the Nkuringo region. Therefore, a 150 meterwide buffer zone was established by planting tea, which is not consumed by gorillas. In addition, 10 volunteer human-gorilla conflict management teams were set up to guard the national park boundary and drive gorillas back into the forest whenever they entered community land. Sustainable income for communities through tourism was also established. To ensure that those who sustain the most losses from wild animals benefit from income generated through tourism, the initiative implemented a revenue-sharing scheme that was more equitable. Community projects that benefitted part or all of the community, such as school infrastructure, health care, and road repair, were also supported.

What does the future of human-wildlife coexistence look like?

Integrated and holistic human-wildlife conflict management

Ultimately, integrated and holistic management systems to address human-wildlife conflict are what is needed to swing the pendulum from conflict towards coexistence. Single, piecemeal interventions that address one issue, without any long-term commitment or monitoring in place, are often band-aid fixes and only offer temporary solutions. Long-term approaches that are implemented simultaneously, address drivers and involve the perspectives, commitments, and needs of all stakeholders involved are the best path forward for a coexistent future.

Collaboration and partnerships

Effective human-wildlife conflict management and coexistence strategies require inclusive collaboration among all stakeholders involved and co-designing of management approaches, all underpinned by effective exchange and communication. Transforming social tensions and conflicts through strong governance is crucial. Within these collaborations, exchange of best practices should be fostered.

Research

There is still a lot we do not know about human-wildlife conflict, especially in the absence of systematic and regular monitoring. Gaining a holistic and deeper understanding of processes, drivers, and impacts of conflict and coexistence will enable the development of new approaches. Interdisciplinary approaches, involving social and natural science, psychology, and environmental law, will better inform our understanding.

Connectivity

Maintaining connectivity for wildlife in human-dominated spaces is very important. Many species have adapted to utilize these areas, bringing about difficult and delicate conversations around land-sharing. Disruption of movement and lack of access to areas with suitable habitat and resources can lead to diversions in movement and increases in human-wildlife conflict. The future of coexistence requires that wildlife are able to exist within human-dominated landscapes while not only substantially and sustainably reducing risks and costs for people and wildlife, but also enabling benefits for communities that live alongside wildlife.

Innovation

Human-wildlife coexistence is inspiring people all over the world and creating opportunities for innovation. Technology, as part of a suite of measures, is just one example that makes up comprehensive solutions. However, many tech tools, such as early warning systems, which are largely developed to prevent conflict, do not address other elements of the whole problem. Innovation must look beyond technology for piecemeal conflict management alone and include new ideas and approaches that foster human-wildlife coexistence. This will require participation from key groups, such as the communities themselves, representatives from the social, biological, and engineering sciences, the private sector, and policymakers for more trust, respect, and understanding. However, just as innovation is important for the success of strategies and solutions, monitoring also plays a key role in truly gauging their success or failure.

 

Key Resources to Learn More

References

[1] IUCN (2020). IUCN SSC Position Statement on the Management of Human-Wildlife Conflict. (IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) Human-Wildlife Conflict Task Force).