On human-animal conflict, the wildlife plan falls short
Solutions for conservation conflict need a broader agenda instead of the hitherto blanketprotection approach
In India, wildlife conservation faces complex challenges that vary according to place, time and context. The national wildlife action plans (the first was drafted in 1983) identified some of those challenges and served as long-term roadmaps for addressing them. The new National Wildlife Action Plan (2017-2031), released on October 2, is a sincere attempt towards meeting the same challenges.
There is a departure from an exclusionary wildlife conservation model to the incorporation of some inclusive ideas for conservation. This appears to be the beginning of a shift from the old conservation model — focusing on undisturbed protected areas, enforced protection and exclusionary practices —to a more holistic agenda.
One of the themes of conservation in the new plan is a chapter on human-wildlife conflict, signifying the increasing internalisation of the problem by policy makers. Such conflicts appear to be situated in relation with other themes including the need for a landscape-level approach, the acceptance of rights of use and entry (into forests), and people’s participation in conservation. But the plan does not explicitly make a distinction between the two manifestations of such conflicts: Mananimal conflict and conservation conflict (the differences between groups of people located on either side of the conservation divide). These are important to solve the problem: The first relates to solutions that aim at local communities and species (for example, rural populations living in close proximity to animals and the destruction that happens), while conservation conflict places communities in opposition to top-down wildlife conservation agendas. In such situations, conservation interventions fuel more conflicts.
Solutions for conservation conflict will require a broader agenda, involving an acceptance of a relational ethics and different world views (tolerance, protection, culling and extermination) and democratic decisionmaking. But the current plan is still geared largely towards blanket protection and preservation arrangements. While new research results on solutions to conflicts are there in the plan, it pays less attention to spillover from protected areas, the dynamic and shifting nature of pockets of conflict, and to socialpolitical and cultural aspects of conflicts.
An even greater challenge will be to reconcile this forward-looking plan with existing legislation such as the Wildlife Protection Act, which is heavily rooted in the fortress conservation approach.
It remains to be seen if inclusive solutions and democratic and rights-based approaches will be implemented on the ground. Always listen to your heart. Now, haven’t all of us heard this line umpteen times. But are we doing so? Are we really listening to our heart’s commands?
It is time you began asking these questions to your heart. And the answer you will get is a clear “NO”. It is very easy to impart such nuggets of wisdom but it is quite another thing to actually execute them in real life.
Not only in the biggest decisions of our