Human-Wildlife Conflict: Global Policy and Perception Insights World Bank Research

BRIEFNovember 9, 2023

Human-Wildlife Conflict: Global Policy and Perception Insights

- linkedin
- digg
- renren
- stumbleupon
- delicious
- sina

HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT INSIGHTS
GLOBAL SURVEY

Human-wildlife conflict is one of the most pressing issues facing biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Human-wildlife conflict is when encounters between humans and wildlife lead to negative impacts, such as wildlife raiding crops, attacking livestock, injuring people, or damaging property, often leading to the loss of livelihoods and exacerbation of poverty. It can occur in and around protected areas or along migratory corridors where agricultural landscapes overlap with wildlife habitat. These socio-economic consequences can negatively influence perceptions of people towards wildlife and conservation efforts and, in retaliation, people may kill or relocate the problem animal.

A wide range of species groups are involved in human-wildlife conflict, from those that are common, to mammals of conservation concern such as elephants and large carnivores (e.g. lions, jaguars, snow leopards, tigers). The latter are at risk of further decline due to these conflicts. This is why Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) included within Target 4 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) the need to ��effectively manage human-wildlife interactions to minimize human-wildlife conflict for coexistence��. This is the first time that human-wildlife conflict has been explicitly referenced within global targets for biodiversity, reflecting an increase in political attention.

In the lead-up to the adoption of the KMGBF, the -funded, World Bank-led Global Wildlife Program (GWP) completed a global survey to understand the context behind increasing attention by governments to the issue of human-wildlife conflict. The survey explored government perceptions of the severity and scale of human-wildlife conflict, as well as the effectiveness of their country��s response. The top insights from the global survey completed by 70 countries[1] are summarized below.

Human-wildlife conflict is increasing globally, but especially in low-income countries.

Rapid population growth, high dependence on natural capital, shifting land use patterns that bring people and natural habitats into close contact, and a lack of financial resources to respond make low-income countries most susceptible to human-wildlife conflict. When asked about the nature of human-wildlife conflict, almost two thirds (64%) of responding governments noted that it was a ��major�� and ��serious�� concern in their country, a statement that was most supported by low-income countries (86%) and respondents from Africa (72%; Figure 1). Responses on the increasing nature of human-wildlife conflict were more conclusive, with 73% of countries agreeing that human-wildlife conflict ��is increasing�� (Figure 1), particularly among low-income countries (86%) and also lower-middle- and upper-middle-income (74% and 78%, respectively) categories. A similar pattern emerged across other regions that human-wildlife conflict is becoming more prominent (73% in Latin America and the Caribbean; 67% in Asia and Pacific; and 67% in Europe). Key drivers of human-wildlife conflict, such as changes in habitat fragmentation, shifting wildlife and human populations, and natural disasters, occur globally and underpin these perceptions.

Smallholder, subsistence farmers, and pastoralists are the stakeholders most concerned with human-wildlife conflict.

When governments were asked to identify the stakeholder groups for whom human-wildlife conflict is a primary concern, over half (57%) selected smallholder and subsistence farmers and pastoralists (Figure 2). Smallholder farmers and pastoralists derive most of their income from agriculture and livestock, and with little to no safety nets, the economic damage of losing even a portion of a crop or a few head of livestock is a heavy burden. Similarly, human-wildlife conflict can be a persistent driver of local food insecurity in poor communities. Indigenous communities, who play a significant role in the management of protected and conserved areas, were the second most frequently identified stakeholder group (46%) affected by human-wildlife conflict, particularly in Africa (59%) and Latin America and the Caribbean (55%).

Direct economic damages top the list of most concerning impacts of human-wildlife conflict. However, there are multiple indirect impacts that cannot be overlooked.

The top three impacts of concern perceived by responding governments were damage to crops (79%), livestock depredation (60%), and the risk of direct encounter with wildlife, with resulting injury or attack (57%; Figure 3). Damage to crops was the most-cited concern in Africa (90%) and in Asia and Pacific (80%), while in Latin America and the Caribbean (91%) and Europe (87%) it was the predation of livestock. Over half of respondents (57%) mentioned potential impacts of injury or attack from wildlife, an important impact noted across all regions except Europe, and the tied top impact in low-income and upper-middle-income categories. The resulting impacts can be severe.

A range of indirect impacts were also mentioned, including concerns over disease transfer, restricted access to natural resources, and fear of wildlife encounters. This invariably impacts the safety, security, and well-being of communities living around protected areas and wildlife corridors.

Looking at these diverse impacts, it is evident that human-wildlife conflict is a multi-sectoral issue.

To supplement the global perceptions survey, the GWP conducted a desktop review of 180[2] adopted National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) to assess whether they mentioned human-wildlife conflict and, if so, in what context. are the primary instrument for national implementation of the CBD, outlining national strategies and targets for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. They aim to support the mainstreaming of biodiversity into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans, programs, and policies �C a highly-relevant issue for human-wildlife conflict. The key insights from the NBSAP review are summarized below.

Almost a quarter (24%) of NBSAPs refer to human-wildlife conflict as an important national issue for biodiversity conservation.

Not surprisingly, no NBSAPs mention human-wildlife conflict explicitly in their national targets, as it was not included in the Aichi Biodiversity Targets on which national targets are based. However, it is still included in many NBSAPs as a priority, mentioned in the overall country context for biodiversity conservation or in supporting narratives for national targets (e.g., on protected area management, threatened species conservation, etc.). Regionally, NBSAPs of countries from Africa (38%) were most likely to mention human-wildlife conflict (Figure 4), followed by Asia[3] (24%), Europe (24%), and Latin America and the Caribbean (22%). No NBSAPs from North America or Oceania mentioned human-wildlife conflict. By income category, low-income countries were most likely to include human wildlife conflict in their NBSAPs (42%), followed by lower-middle-income (27%), high-income (22%), and upper-middle-income (17%) countries.

NBSAPs are twice as likely to mention the sectors impacted by human-wildlife conflict than they are the people and stakeholders that bear the brunt of impacts.

The quarter of NBSAPs that reference human-wildlife conflict are most likely to mention it in terms of its impacts on different sectors. Over eighty percent (84%) of the human-wildlife conflict subset of NBSAPs mentioned at least one sector impacted by human-wildlife conflict. Of these, agriculture including livestock was by far the most frequently mentioned sector of impact (64%), followed by biodiversity conservation (27%), fisheries (16%), and forestry (11%). Agriculture was consistently the most frequently mention across all regions (80% in Europe; 67% in Asia; 60% in Sub-Saharan Africa; and 40% in Latin America and the Caribbean). It was also the most frequently mentioned in high-income (83%), low-income (70%), and upper-middle-income (63%) countries.

In comparison, over half of the NBSAPs referencing human-wildlife conflict made no mention of who was being impacted, with only 43% referencing stakeholder groups. Those that did were most likely to mention smallholder or subsistence farmers (25%). Only a handful (9%) mentioned communities.

Since there are multiple challenges in human-wildlife conflict management, working across sectors and with diverse stakeholders is essential.

Only 23% of respondents to the government survey thought that human-wildlife conflict was sufficiently addressed and well-managed in their country (Figure 6). When asked about specific challenges impeding human-wildlife conflict management, the majority of responses from governments centered on the challenges of competing priorities, engagement with affected communities, technical knowledge and know-how, and policies focusing on the issue. The significance of the latter is confirmed by the NBSAP review which found that the most frequently listed action in NBSAPs for human-wildlife conflict management is the development of targeted policies.

The importance of national policies and strategies to support management of human-wildlife conflict cannot be overstated. They help a country strategize ways to overcome the threats, address drivers of human-wildlife conflict, and clarify the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders. Policies are also an important tool to help ministries of environment (typically charged with the responsibility of wildlife management) integrate human-wildlife conflict into the plans and budgets of other sectors. For example, Namibia��s human-wildlife conflict strategy () discusses how droughts and floods are a key driver of increasing human-wildlife interactions and outlines how activities under the National Disaster Fund accordingly integrate human-wildlife conflict management as part of the government��s disaster risk management and risk reduction programs. Similarly, in India, the human-wildlife conflict national strategy () integrates funding programs and plans across the development sector with other relevant processes. Yet, despite the global reach of human-wildlife conflict and its cross-sector impacts, fewer than 10 countries currently have national strategies focusing on human-wildlife conflict.[4]

Minimizing conflict and maximizing opportunities that promote human-wildlife coexistence are critical.

Human-wildlife conflict will persist as landscapes are modified to adapt to the changing needs of a growing human population, and as protected areas and natural habitats are impacted by cropland and urban expansion. This analysis shows that there is broad agreement across regions and income categories on the complexity and increasing extent of human-wildlife conflict, and that multiple challenges must be addressed to make coexistence a reality.

The inclusion of human-wildlife conflict within the KMGBF is an opportunity to increase awareness of this challenge and direct more resources towards achieving coexistence. We urge governments to recognize human-wildlife conflict within their updated post-COP15 NBSAPs to help mainstream this issue across sectors and facilitate integrated action across relevant ministries. Importantly, management approaches and strategies for achieving coexistence need to be developed in close consultation with the communities and stakeholders that are affected by human-wildlife conflict or have a role to play in wildlife conservation.

A key action to bring stakeholders and sectors together in a shared vision for coexistence is for governments to develop a national policy for human-wildlife conflict. This can be complemented by a range of site-level interventions including participatory land use planning, education and awareness, and assessments of the benefits and costs to local communities. ŷ��b��Ƭ and the GWP stand ready to support these efforts, to help ensure that the countries and people that encounter human-wildlife conflict daily have the capacity and tools to manage it while promoting human-wildlife coexistence for conservation and development.

This brief summarizes the results of a global human-wildlife conflict perceptions survey and review of NBSAPs conducted by the Global Wildlife Program, funded by the Global Environment Facility, and led by the World Bank. Aspects of the work were completed with the support of the IUCN Species Survival Commission Human-Wildlife Conflict and Coexistence Specialist Group. For additional information, email gwp-info@worldbank.org

NOTES

[1] For information on the countries that responded to the survey, see survey report. Survey responses are reported in four regions, adjusted from by combining regions with low response rates. For the NBSAP analysis, similar regional groupings are used, with the exception of Asia and Pacific which is reported as Asia for accuracy as no NBSAPs in Oceania or the Pacific mention human-wildlife conflict.

[2] The NBSAPs reviewed were current post-COP10 versions found on the CBD website and available in English, French or Spanish. The list of keywords used in the review: ��wildlife��, ��human��, ��conflict��, ��coexistence��, ��livestock��, ��damage��, ��depredation��, ��crops�� (and equivalents in French and Spanish).

[3] As there were no mentions of ��human-wildlife conflict�� in NBSAPs from Oceania or the Pacific, data is reported in the regional grouping of Asia to more accurately reflect the geographic region from which NBSAP data is being drawn.

[4] A desktop review identified adopted national human-wildlife conflict policies in Bhutan, Bolivia, India, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Tanzania, and Uganda, with others under development. In addition, some countries with decentralized environmental responsibilities have adopted human-wildlife conflict strategies at the sub-national level (excluded from this analysis).

Human-Wildlife Conflict Global Perception Survey

Context

Human-wildlife conflict is a threat to conservation and sustainable development. It refers to ��struggles that emerge when the presence or behavior of wildlife poses an actual or perceived, direct and recurring threat to human interests or needs, leading to disagreements between groups of people and negative impacts on people and/or wildlife�� (). Typically, this involves situations such as crop or property damage, livestock predation, safety risks, retaliatory killing of wildlife, and the accompanying tensions between groups of people about what should be done in response. The losses or damages can have catastrophic economic consequences where such conflict persists and local communities that face this problem often live near protected areas, with limited livelihood options.

Although the costs of damages to people are hard to measure, indicative numbers across countries show the vast scale of human-wildlife conflict. For example, in Kenya, the government has received human-wildlife conflict claims of up to (Kenyan shillings 530 million) for the 2021-22 financial year. Human-elephant conflict in India is estimated at one million hectares of crops lost, 10,000-15,000 damaged properties, and around 400 human deaths and 100 elephant deaths annually (Gulati et al., 2021). In addition to the economic costs, human-wildlife conflict has grave impacts on welfare, safety, food security, health, education, and other development outcomes. In retaliation, wildlife are killed and resentment against conservation efforts ensues. For several species, like African elephants and jaguars, such tensions now pose a significant threat to their survival.

The impact of human-wildlife conflict on both conservation and development goals makes it an important issue for countries to address. In fact, parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) included human-wildlife conflict in Target 4 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), stating the need to �� effectively manage human-wildlife interactions to minimize human-wildlife conflict for coexistence.�� This is the first time that human-wildlife conflict has been explicitly referenced within global targets for biodiversity, reflecting the increased political attention on this issue. In the lead-up to the adoption of the KMGBF, the GEF-funded, World Bank-led Global Wildlife Program (GWP) completed an international survey of governments to understand the context behind the increasing attention on human-wildlife conflict. The survey examines how governments perceive the severity and scale of human-wildlife conflict, as well as the effectiveness of their responses to it.

About the survey

An online questionnaire was emailed to all CBD National Focal Points. The survey consisted of five parts: details about the respondent��s professional background; and questions on the human-wildlife conflict context including impacts on humans and wildlife; the conflict management response effectiveness; challenges in addressing human-wildlife conflict; and human-wildlife conflict monitoring capacity and needs. In the survey, human-wildlife conflict was defined as ��the tensions that result from (actual or perceived) damage by wildlife on human livelihoods, property, or safety, and the (actual or potential) retaliation that may ensue.�� Not included in this definition are illegal wildlife trade, infrastructure collisions, sport hunting, and poaching.

The survey was administered using a Google Form in three languages: English, French, and Spanish. Only one response per country was used for the analysis. In the case of duplicate entries, submissions were selected by choosing the more complete entry or that which was filled by a CBD National Focal Point or human-wildlife conflict Officer, where applicable.

The survey was completed by respondents from 70 countries, covering a fairly even distribution of income classifications (low: 20%, lower-middle: 27%, upper-middle: 26%, high: 27%). The distribution was less balanced across continents: Africa (41%), Asia and Pacific (21%), Europe (21%), Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC; 16%).

Survey Findings

1. Human-wildlife conflict is considered a major and serious concern, especially in low-income countries

The general trend (64%) is that human-wildlife conflict is a major and serious concern (Figure 1), particularly so in low-income countries (86%), and countries in Africa (72%), Asia and Pacific (67%), and Latin America and the Caribbean (64%). It appears to be of less concern in Europe and in high-income countries.

2. Human-wildlife conflict is perceived to be increasing across the globe

Almost three quarters (73%) of the countries that responded said that human-wildlife conflict is increasing or becoming more prominent in their country. This is seen across all regions (Figure 2): Africa (79%), Asia and Pacific (67%), Europe (67%), and Latin America and the Caribbean (73%). Perceptions of the increasing nature of human-wildlife conflict are likely to be linked to the increasing drivers of this conflict including changes in land use patterns leading to habitat degradation and fragmentation, and to natural disasters such as droughts leading to competition over resources.

3. Human-wildlife conflict involves a wide range of species

As humans and wildlife interact more often, there are some species that are perceived to be typical conflict species due to the frequency of interactions or the scale of damage. Survey responses highlight a wide range of species groups that cause damage, with the most frequently identified being birds (40%), herbivores such as deer, pigs, and hippos (39%), elephants (37%), large carnivores (37%), primates (34%), and crocodiles (26%). The main species identified in each region are shown in Figure 3. The survey respondents include 26 elephant range states (out of 50 African and Asian range states) and of these, all selected elephants as a human-wildlife conflict concern. Expectedly, large carnivores are the top species of concern in Latin America and the Caribbean (82%). Jaguars in this region have lost over 85% of their historical range leading to inevitable conflicts with livestock owners. In Asia and Pacific, more than half of respondents identify primates (60%), large carnivores (such as tigers and leopards; 53%), or elephants (53%) as main species of concern.

4. Smallholder, subsistence farmers, and pastoralists are the stakeholders most concerned with human-wildlife conflict

Over half (57%) of the respondents consider smallholder, subsistence, and pastoral stakeholders to be most concerned with human-wildlife conflict. These groups of stakeholders highly depend on agriculture and livestock for their livelihood and well-being and are also often those living closest to wildlife habitats, such as protected areas or areas of wildlife migration. Thus, the economic damage and secondary impacts like food insecurity and well-being losses place a huge burden on them. Indigenous communities are the next most frequently identified stakeholder group (46%) considered to be affected by this conflict. Around two thirds (67%) of respondents say that there is more than one stakeholder group for whom human-wildlife conflict is a primary concern, implying that in many cases it affects several different stakeholders. Figure 4 shows the different groups of stakeholders affected by human-wildlife conflict across regions.

5. Damage to crops, livestock depredation, and risk of injury or attack are the most frequently-cited human-wildlife conflict impacts

The top three impacts of concern that respondents most frequently reported are damage to crops (79%), livestock depredation (60%), and the risk of direct encounter with wildlife, with resulting injury or attack (57%) (Figure 5). Damage to crops is the most-cited concern in Africa (90%) and Asia and Pacific (80%), while predation of livestock is most-cited in Latin America and the Caribbean (91%) and Europe (87%). Over half of the respondents (57%) mention potential impacts of injury or attack from wildlife, an important impact across all regions except Europe, and the tied top impact in low-income and upper-middle-income categories.

A range of indirect impacts are also mentioned, including concerns over disease transfer, restricted access to natural resources, and fears of wildlife encounters, which invariably affect the safety, security, and well-being of communities living around protected areas and wildlife corridors.

Respondents from lower-middle-income and low-income countries consider human-wildlife conflict to be relevant across most of these answer categories, while those from high-income and upper-middle-income countries are most likely to identify livestock or crop damage and direct encounter risk. Respondents from low-income and lower-middle-income countries are most likely to show concern about impacts related to restricted access to resources, because of their high dependence on natural resources for their livelihoods.

6. Few countries perceive that human-wildlife conflict is being sufficiently addressed

Almost half (44%) of responding countries believe that human-wildlife conflict is not sufficiently addressed and well-managed in their countries. Only 20% of countries responded that it is being sufficiently addressed and managed. Regionally, there are some differences (Figure 6), with the strongest concerns coming from Latin American and the Caribbean where 73% of respondents think that human-wildlife conflict is not sufficiently well-managed, followed by Africa (48%). For Asia and Pacific, over half (53%) of respondents were unsure and in Europe, perceptions on management of human-wildlife conflict were mixed.

7. Effective management of human-wildlife conflict is impeded by many challenges

Countries indicate that their management of human-wildlife conflict faces challenges, with almost half (49%) selecting at least one major challenge from a list of potential challenges. The most frequently-cited challenges (identified as being either a major or medium challenge) are competing needs or priorities in the biodiversity agenda (86%), policies, legal instruments and political will (81%), and liaison and tensions with human-wildlife conflict-affected communities (81%) (Figure 7). The items most frequently identified as a major challenge are budget allocations or financial resources (57%), competing needs or priorities in the biodiversity agenda (55%), and infrastructure and equipment for human-wildlife conflict management (54%).

8. Monitoring of human-wildlife conflict is important, but also faces many challenges

Over seventy percent (71%) of respondents indicate that measuring and monitoring human-wildlife conflict is very important or important. This view is particularly held by low income countries, with 93% identifying monitoring as very important or important, followed by respondents from upper-middle-income countries (72%) (Figure 8).

9. Governments play a primary role in human-wildlife conflict management and work with multiple stakeholders in doing so

Government respondents almost universally consider that the task of carrying out human-wildlife conflict management lies either entirely, mostly or partly with government (96%), with over 80% identifying themselves as playing the leading role in management (entirely or mostly responsible). Local stakeholders such as local NGOs or community-based organizations were the second most frequently identified stakeholder (80%) carrying out human-wildlife conflict management (Figure 9).

Over 80% of respondents identify more than two other stakeholder groups beyond government as playing a role, and over half identify more than three stakeholder groups beyond government. One quarter of respondents note that all listed stakeholders (e.g, government, international NGOs, local NGOs and community-based organizations, research/academic institutions, and consultants and private organizations) currently play at least some role in human-wildlife conflict management. This reflects the complexity and multifaceted nature of this issue at the intersection of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development, and the fact that it cannot easily or sufficiently be managed by one stakeholder or agency alone.

Acknowledgements

The global perception survey and the NBSAP analysis were prepared by the Global Wildlife Program (GWP) coordination team at the World Bank. The leads for the survey and analysis were Alexandra Zimmermann and Manali Baruah, GWP consultants, World Bank. The team would like to thank Kevin William Conklin and Divyanshi Wadhwa, DECID Team, World Bank for the interactive graphs, and to Diana Manevskaya and Sharee Lawyer for their contributions.

Global Wildlife Program

CONTACT:

Hasita Bhammar

hbhammar@worldbank.org

ŷ����b��Ƭ