See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279752445

Economics of Man-animal Conflict: A Lesson for Wildlife Conservation

Book · January 2003

CITATION READS 1 297

2 authors:

Tuhin K. Das Indrila Guha Jadavpur University Basanti Devi College

77 PUBLICATIONS 224 CITATIONS 22 PUBLICATIONS 47 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Climate Change View project

A SURVEY TO EVALUATE THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION IN JALDAPARA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY IN WEST BENGAL View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tuhin K. Das on 20 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Contents

Preface List of tables List of figures 1. Conservation from ecological perspectives 2. Steps towards conservation in India 3. Emerging conflicts and participatory approach 4. Economics of man-animal conflict 5. Background information of selected sanctuaries 6. Who are the respondents 7. Crop raiding and extent of loss 8. Loss of life and asset 9. Compensation and people’s dissatisfaction 10. Benefit- cost analysis 11. People’s preference for wildlife conservation 12. Conservation from socio-economic point of view Epilogue Bibliography Index

Preface

India has accorded high priority to the conservation of wildlife as can be seen from the number of governmental measures undertaken, like establishment of national parks and sanctuaries, legislation, special projects for conservation of endangered animals, institutional support and conservation education. However, in the case of wildlife conservation the real problem is human management apart from how the animals are handled. Here lies the importance of economics of man-animal conflict. People in and around any wildlife sanctuary bear the costs of damage caused by wild animals to human life, assets, and agricultural crops. On the contrary, they derive some benefits from the habitats of wild animals. The resulting benefit-cost relations sometimes lead to man-animal conflict. The government always tries to mitigate these conflicts through various precautionary measures and compensations to the affected people, although the rate of compensation is not always appropriate. In this context, a quantitative analysis is highly needed to decide how to compensate the affected people in a rational way. The proposed book is such an attempt with case studies. First part of this book (Chapters 1-5) covers some important aspects of wildlife conservation, namely ecological aspect, legal aspect and socio-economic aspect. And all the discussions in these chapters are based on secondary data. But Chapters 6-12 of this book are based on primary data obtained from field surveys in the forest villages of Jaldapara and Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuaries. DSA Centre of the Department of Economics, Jadavpur University provided financial assistance for conducting those field surveys. So, we would like to thank Professor Ajitava

Raychaudhury, Coordinator of the DSA Centre, Department of Economics, Jadavpur University for funding this project and extending his financial cooperation for publication of this book. The authors also acknowledge all sorts of help provided by Mr. A. K. Raha, Chief Conservator of forests and Mr. S. K. Das, Conservator of Forest, South to make the field survey in Jaldapara and Mahanada Willife Sanctuaries possible. During the survey, the cooperation from Mr. Dilip Chakroborty, and Divisional Forest Officers of Darjeeling and Coochbehar should also be acknowledged. Finally, the authors are thankful to Alokananda Mukherjee and Ishita Datta Roy for their patient reading with comments in the course of completing the manuscript.

January 15, 2003, Kolkata Tuhin K. Das Indrila Guha

List of tables

No. Description Page

1.1 Threatened species in India 2 1.2 Basic building blocks of biodiversity 4 1.3 Nationally protected areas 6 2.1 Endangered species (mammals) in schedule I of the Wild Life (protection) Act, 1972 17 2.2 Endangered species (amphibians and reptiles) in schedule I of the Wild Life (protection) Act, 1972 20 2.3 Endangered species (birds) in schedule I of the Wild Life (protection) Act, 1972 21 3.1 An example of man-animal conflict 5.1 Animal species found in Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary 38 5.2 Animal species found in Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary 41 5.3 Budgetary allocation (in percentage) for a period of 5 years 42 6.1 Family profile and income level 46 6.2 Average age of respondents 47 6.3 Educational level of respondents 48 6.4 Occupational (primary) pattern of the respondents 49 6.5 Occupational (subsidiary) pattern of the respondents 50 7.1 Frequency of incidents of crop raiding per household 52

No. Description Page

7.2 Animals responsible for crop raiding (in percentage) 53 7.3 Crop-wise allocation of land per household 54 7.4 Crop-wise return and loss per household from agriculture 55 8.1 Loss of life and asset 59 8.2 Monetary value of losses per household 60 9.1 Official rate of compensation for different kinds of loss 65 9.2 Compensation received against loss of crops 66 9.3 Demand for compensation 67 9.4 Frequency of crop raiding per household 68 9.5 Anomaly between loss and demand for compensation 69 10.1 Yearly benefits derived per household from sanctuaries 71 10.2 Benefit-cost analysis 73 11.1 WTP for wildlife conservation 79 11.2 Percentage of respondents in favour of arguments for WTP 80 11.3 Conditional WTP for conservation of wildlife 83 11.4 Logistic regression model of WTP on Socio-economic variables 85 12.1 Penalty for committing offences in Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary 76 12.2 Average budgetary allocation per year (in million Rupees) 78 12.3 Killings of wild animals per year (1983-94) 78

No. Description Page

12.4 Economic and non-economic arguments behind WTP 79 12.5 Number of tourists and revenue earned from Youth Hostel and Hollong and Barodabari Tourist Lodge 80 12.6 Outcome and pay-off summary for Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary 81

List of figures

No. Description Page

3.1 Sources of man-animal conflict 29 4.1 Economics of man-animal conflict 36 5.1 Protected areas in India 44 7.1 Return from cultivation of different crops in JWLS 56 7.2 Return from cultivation of different crops in MWLS 57 7.3 Distribution of loss, input cost and net return 58 8.1 Percentage share of losses of different kinds in JWLS 61 8.2 Percentage share of losses of different kinds in MWLS 63 9.1 Inconsistency in compensation rate per acre for crop loss 70 10.1 Benefits from forests in JWLS 75 10.2 Benefits from forests in MWLS 76 11.1 Effect of socio-economic factors on WTP 88

CHAPTER 1

CONSERVATION FROM ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES

Depletion of wildlife species has gone hand in hand with the progress of civilization. Thousands of years ago primitive man lived in harmony with nature. His hunting of wild animals for food and clothing never caused the depletion of wild animals. In fact, decline in the number of wildlife species has kept pace with human progress and technological advance. Destruction of habitats of wildlife for the spread of urban areas, construction of roads, railways and dams, and agricultural and industrial operations has caused the decline of wildlife population. Along with the destruction of habitats for human progress, uncontrolled hunting and poaching of wild animals for pleasure, furs, horns, tusks, and other animal products has also caused many animal species either to go extinct or endangered. But man has not always been the sole cause for wildlife depletion. Extinction of animal species occurred even over millions of years long before the appearance of man in this world. Natural extinction of species is a way of nature to give rise to more advanced forms of life as the process of evolution  natural selection. Certain species always disappear over time as they become unable to withstand the competition from those that are better adopted. Several animals like the mammoths and mastodons have flourished and disappeared in the course of time.

It has been estimated that the natural rate of species extinction is at about 0.000009 per cent per year. However, at several times in the geological past, this rate was very high on natural grounds. Sometimes a whole group of animals have become extinct, as had happened with the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous period, some seventy million years ago. The present rate of species extinction is also very high. But this time it is primarily due to the actions of human beings. A large number of species either go extinct or are threatened because of either overexploitation or habitat destruction. In all of the countries in the world ─ low, middle and high-income ─ significant number of species is now threatened.╬ If appropriate conservation measures are not taken, these threatened species will go extinct very soon. Even in developed countries like United States more than eleven percent of the total species of mammals, birds and higher plants are now threatened species. In India among the threatened species, more than twelve percent are mammals, about six percent are birds, and more than eight percent are higher plants (see Table 1.1).

Table 1.1 Threatened species in India

Species Number of species Threatened species

Mammals 340 40

Birds 1200 71

Higher plants 15000 1256

Source: World Development Indicators, World Bank, 1998

╬ A threatened species is what has been classified by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as endangered, vulnerable, rare and indeterminate.

Certain species go extinct because of overexploitation, but vast majority of them are at risk because of habitat destruction. This comes primarily from pressures to pursue economic development like clearing of forests for agricultural uses, conversion of wetland for urban expansion, and so on. Habitat destruction has caused worldwide reduction in diversity of wild species of animals. Habitat destruction has an adverse impact on wildlife as it leads to the loss of an environment that provides them food and breeding grounds to facilitate bringing up their young ones. So with habitat destruction, wild animals are left with no alternative but to migrate or perish. Widespread habitat loss all over the world, thus, has reduced the population of many species, making them rare and endangered. One of the most important agendas of today’s ecological crisis is conservation of wild animals, as many of them occupy a significant position in the functioning of natural ecosystems. Moreover, the nature always strives for greater diversity, that is, greater variety of animal species in an ecosystem, which leads to its stability. Any alteration of one species affects all the other species too, thus disturbing the stability of the ecosystem. For example, the decline in the number of carnivorous animals like tiger would increase the number of herbivorous animals like deer, which may eat up most of the vegetation or may help in spread of diseases. Existence of wildlife would then be at stake. Also the human population cannot sustain without cultivating the stock of wild species. The wildlife species is a rich resource of genes that can be used in breeding new forms of animals for characters like disease resistance, higher production, etc. Genetic materials are transferred from wild species into cultivated ones through traditional animal breeding, biotechnology, etc. Thus human need calls for the conservation of wildlife as an important genetic resource too. Moreover, the

wildlife is important from the viewpoint of their aesthetic and recreational value for human being. But conservation of wildlife does not mean preservation of individual species, since it is not a matter of a single species but a relationship among a large number of species. In fact, the living world is extremely complex. The concept of biodiversity is one attempt to capture this complexity. Biodiversity means the variability among living organisms from all sources including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexities of which they are part. In short, biodiversity is the variety of life, in all its manifestations. It encompasses all forms, levels and combinations of natural variation and thus serves as a broad unifying concept.

Table 1.2. Basic building blocks of biodiversity ______Ecological diversity Organismal diversity Genetic diversity ______Biomes Kingdoms Bioregions Phyla Landscapes Families Ecosystems Genera Habitats Species Niches Subspecies Populations ------Populations ------Populations Individuals Individuals Chromosomes Genes Nucleotides ______

Table 1.2 shows the basic building blocks of biodiversity. They can be divided into three groups: ecological diversity,

organismal diversity and genetic diversity. These groups are intimately linked, though they are presented separately. It is observed from the table that population is a common element in all three groups. Thus elements of biodiversity are not independent, but they are dependent on each other. For example, within organismal diversity, kingdoms, phyla, families, genera, species, subspecies, populations and individuals form a nested sequence, in which all elements at lower levels belong to the elements at higher levels. Similarly, within ecological diversity, niches are constituted of populations, habitats consist of niches, ecosystems are constituted of habitats, and so on. Thus each element in a group is linked with each element in other groups. Or in other words, existence of one element in a group urgently needs the existence of the other element at a higher level in the same group or in other groups. The survival of wildlife species that is an element in organismal diversity in Table 1.2, therefore, needs the continuance of habitat, which is an element in ecological diversity. Indeed, conservation of wildlife depends on conservation (or maintenance) of habitats. Every habitat should be big enough so that species may preserve themselves in complex biological equilibrium. This involves initially identifying valuable habitats and then protecting them from development pressures that are incompatible with preserving the resident species. Efforts have been made to protect areas of high biological value by way of putting them into some sort of protected status ─ sanctuaries, reserves, parks, etc. Protected areas and their percentage of total land areas for different countries are shown in Table 1.3. Since the idea of protected area was developed in the high-income countries, it is not surprising that the proportion of total area that is under protection is higher in these countries.

Table 1.3. Nationally protected areas

Protected areas Percent of total land area Countries (Thousand sq km) India 143.4 4.8 China 580.8 6.2 Brazil 321.9 3.8 Argentina 43.7 1.6 Kenya 35.0 6.2 Nigeria 29.7 3.3 Norway 55.4 18.0 United Kingdom 51.1 21.2 United States 1302.1 11.4 World 8603.0 6.7 Source: World Development Indicators, World Bank, 1998.

The world’s primary areas of species diversity are in developing countries in Central and South America, Africa, and Asia. Conservation of biodiversity becomes complicated in these countries because of high population pressures on habitats. People, who are struggling to get enough resources to achieve some degree of economic development in these countries, feel that biological diversity is not particularly relevant to them. However, environmental groups, political decision makers, economists, and ordinary people alike are now attaching importance to biodiversity. Being conscious of  the intrinsic value of biodiversity and of the ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values of biodiversity,  and also the importance of biodiversity for evolution and for maintaining life sustaining systems of the biosphere, a landmark treaty, the Convention on Biological Diversity, was signed by more than 150 nations on 5th June, 1992 at the

UNCED (Imber, 1994). It came into force approximately eighteen months later. The objectives of this convention are “… the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources, including by appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over those resources and to technologies, and by appropriate funding”.. The Convention also affirmed that all countries are responsible for conserving their biological diversity and for using their biological resources in a sustainable manner. Various measures were suggested for in-situ and ex-situ conservation, sustainable use of components of biological diversity, public education and awareness. Suggested measures for biodiversity conservation include  Establishment of a system of protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diversity. (In-situ conservation)  Development of guidelines, where necessary, for the selection, establishment and management of protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diversity. (In-situ conservation)

. Genetic resource means genetic material of actual or potential value. Again genetic material means any material of plant, animal, microbial or other origin containing functional units of heredity. Biotechnology means any technological application that uses biological systems living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use.  Ex-situ conservation means the conservation of components of biological diversity outside their natural habitat. In-situ conservation means the conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats and the maintenance and recovery of viable populations of species in their natural surroundings and, in the case of domesticated or cultivated species, in the surroundings where they have developed their distinctive properties.

 Promotion of the protection of ecosystems, natural habitats and the maintenance of viable populations of species in natural surroundings. (In-situ conservation)  Promotion of environmentally sound and sustainable development in areas adjacent to protected areas with a view to furthering protection of these areas. (In-situ conservation)  Rehabilitation and restoration of degraded ecosystems and promotion of the recovery of threatened species through the development and implementation of plans or other management strategies. (In-situ conservation)  Development or maintenance of necessary legislation and/or other regulatory provisions for the protection of threatened species and populations. (In-situ conservation)  Adoption of measures for the ex-situ conservation of components of biological diversity, preferably in the country of origin of such components. (Ex-situ conservation)  Adoption of measures for the recovery and rehabilitation of threatened species and for their reintroduction into their natural habitats under appropriate conditions. (Ex-situ conservation)  Regulation and management of collection of biological resources from natural habitats for ex-situ conservation purposes so as not to threaten ecosystems and in-situ populations of species, except where special temporary ex- situ measures are required. (Ex-situ conservation)  Promotion and encouragement for understanding of the importance of, and the measures required for, the conservation of biological diversity, as well as its propagation through media, and the inclusion of these topics

in educational programmes. (Public education and awareness)  Cooperation with other States and international organizations in developing educational and public awareness programmes with respect to conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. (Public education and awareness)  Introduction of appropriate procedures requiring environmental impact assessment of proposed projects that are likely to have significant adverse impacts on biological diversity with a view to avoiding or minimizing such effects and, where appropriate, allow for public participation in such procedures. (Impact assessment and minimizing adverse impacts)

Thus the primary thrust of the convention on biological diversity is to provide some measures for establishing a system of protected areas, and for developing guidelines for the selection, establishment and management of those protected areas. The convention also emphasizes on the protection of threatened species and public awareness. Subsequent to this convention on biological diversity, worldwide efforts have been made vigorously to protect areas of high biological value. However, such efforts already were there in some countries prior to this convention, though might not be so vigorous as now. India is an example in this context. The country has a long history of conservation effort, even if many of its unique fauna are faced with a threat of their survival. Some of the conservation efforts, which have been made so far in India, are elaborated in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 2

STEPS TOWARDS CONSERVATION IN INDIA

India has a long tradition and abiding faith in conservation of wildlife. Even in the ancient India, people were conscious about interrelationship between different components of nature, and had faith in conservation of wildlife. The faith was reflected in folk tales, epics, religion, art and culture. In Mahabharata, for example, Bidur enunciated during his discourse with Dhritarastra that neither forest could exist without tigers nor tigers could exist without forests.. It proves that people, even in prehistoric India, were quite aware of the need for the conservation of wildlife. However, no authoritative conservation laws in this country were found till the nineteenth century A.D., though in the third century B.C., concern for wildlife conservation can be found in the edict of Ashoka, the king of Maghadha. The edict appears like a law in the matter of conservation of wildlife. It was related to the ban on killing of certain animals that serve a purpose in the balance of natural systems. The first codified law for wildlife conservation in this country was enacted in the year 1887 by the then British Government in India. It was titled as the Wild Birds Protection Act (Act 10 of 1887). The purpose of that Act was to enable the

. na syathbanamrite byaghran byaghra na surite banam  banam hi rakshate byaghrarbyaghran rakshati kananam  (part 5, section 37, sloke 46)

British Government to frame rules prohibiting the possession or sale of any kind of specified birds that had been killed or taken during the breeding season. But the Act was not adequate for the protection of wild birds and animals. So, another Act, titled Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act (Act 8 of 1912) was passed in the year 1912.The Act of 1912 was again amended in the year 1935 as Wild Birds and Animals Protection (Amendment) Act (Act 27 of 1935). Since then the wildlife protection was relegated to the background because of many factors like Second World War, freedom struggle, and high priority for economic development after independence. In the late 1960’s the concern for wildlife conservation resurfaced. The comprehensive legislation relating to protection of wildlife was passed by the Parliament and it was assented by the President of India on 9th September 1972. The law is known as The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (Act 53 of 1972). The provisions of the Act also have been amended from time to time as The Wild Life (Protection) (Amendment) Act, 1982 (Act 23 of 1982), The Wild Life (Protection) (Amendment) Act, 1986 (Act 28 of 1986), The Wild Life (Protection) (Amendment) Act, 1991 (Act 44 of 1991), and The Wild Life (Protection) (Amendment) Act, 1993 (Act 26 of 1993). The Wild Life (Protection) Act provides for the protection of wild animals, birds, plants, and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto. According to this Act o Animal includes amphibians, birds, mammals and reptiles and their young, and also includes, in the cases of birds and reptiles, their eggs. o Wild animal means any animal found wild in nature, and wildlife includes any animal, bees, butterflies, crustacea, fish and moths; and aquatic or land vegetation which form part of any habitat.

o Animal article means an article made from any captive animal or wild animal, other than vermin, and includes an article or object in which the whole or part of such animal has been used (viz. ivory and an article made from ivory). o Habitat includes land, water or vegetation that is natural home to any wild animal.

This Act enables the Government to declare any area other than an area comprised within any reserve forest¶ or any part of the territorial water as a sanctuary for the purpose of protecting, propagating or developing wildlife or its environment, when this area is considered to be of adequate ecological, faunal, floral, geomorphological, natural or zoological significance. The Act also enables the Government to declare an area, whether within a sanctuary or not, as a National Park for the same purpose of protecting, propagating or developing wildlife or its environment, by reason of its ecological, faunal, floral, geomorphological or zoological association or importance. By notification, the Government defines the limits of the area, which is to be declared as a National Park. In the case of a sanctuary, by notification, the Government specifies, as far as possible, the situation and limits of such area. The essential difference between these two types of protected areas is in the way the wildlife is conserved. Conservation implies manipulative management in a sanctuary, whereas in a National Park conservation of species or habitats are done with minimal or very low intensity of human intervention. Entry in a National Park is very much restricted. But entry in a sanctuary is not so much stringent as that in the

¶ Reserve forest means the forest that has been declared to be reserved by the State Government under section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

case of a National Park. These protected areas are largely natural habitat. Generally, a sanctuary includes moderate human settlements, but there is a few or no human habitation inside a National Park. India at present has a wide network of 69 National Parks and 392 wildlife sanctuaries located in different parts of the country and covering about four percent of the country’s total geographical area. Scientific management in these protected areas has pulled out many threatened species from the brink of extinction. Many threatened species have been saved along with the restoration of their habitats to health. India has a very rich and varied fauna. There are about 75000 species of animals of which 340 species are mammals, 1200 birds, 420 reptiles, 140 amphibians, 2000 fishes, 50,000 insects, 4000 mollusks and several other species of vertebrates. In the schedules (I – VI) of The Wildlife (Protection) Act, names of more than 800 species have been mentioned for their protection. Hunting of any wild animal mentioned in schedules I – IV, is prohibited unless it becomes dangerous to human life or to property, or it is so disabled or diseased as to be beyond recovery. Here hunting means o Capturing, killing, poisoning, snaring and trapping of any wild animal and every attempt to do so; o Driving any wild animal for any of the purposes specified above; o Injuring or destroying or taking any part of the body of any such animal or, in the case of wild birds or reptiles, damaging the eggs of such birds or reptiles or disturbing the eggs or nests of such birds or reptiles.

However, the killing or wounding in good faith of any wild animal in defence of oneself or any other person, when such

defence becomes necessary, would not be an offence. In that case the killed or wounded wild animal would be a Government property. Permits for hunting are also granted for the purposes of education, scientific research, scientific management, collection of specimens for recognized zoos, museums and similar institutions, and for the derivation, collection or preparation of life saving drugs. Scientific management, according to this Act, means o Translocation of any wild animal to an alternative suitable habitat; o Population management of wildlife without killing or poisoning or destroying any wild animals.

The Act also enables the appropriate authority to penalize any person who contravenes any provision of this Act, especially in relation to any animal specified in Schedule I (see Tables 2.1- 2.3). Schedule I specifies 81 species of mammals, 40 species of birds, and 24 species of reptiles, which are endangered in India. The accused person, on conviction, would be punished with imprisonment for a term that might be extended to six years or with fine depending on the nature of offence. The Government of India has also launched some special projects related to the conservation of endangered wild animals other than the establishment of sanctuaries and National Parks. Among them Project Tiger, The Gir Lion Sanctuary Project, Crocodile Breeding Project, Himalayan Musk Deer Project, The Manipur Brow-antlered Deer Project, Project Hangul, and Project Elephant are worth mentioning. The objectives of the Project Tiger were to ensure maintenance of a viable population of tigers for scientific, economic, aesthetic, cultural and ecological values, and to preserve for all times, areas of biological importance as a

national heritage for the benefit, education and enjoyment of the people. Nine tiger reserves were established in 1973-74 as a follow-up of the Project Tiger to conserve the then fast declining tiger population. All forms of human exploitation and disturbance were eliminated from the core area of tiger reserves, and such activities were rationalized in the buffer zones of reserves. Proper habitat management has been performed to repair damages already been done by man with the aim of restoring the ecosystem as close to its natural functioning as possible. It is recognized today that Project Tiger is a conservation success. Now there are 21 tiger reserves distributed throughout the country and covering a forest area of over 30,000 sq. km. The Asiatic lion was under severe threat due to over grazing by domestic livestock, depletion of prey species, etc. They are now confined only in Gir forest of Gujrat. In 1972 the State Government of Gujrat prepared a scheme for management of Gir Lion Sanctuary with proper guidelines for conservation. The Central Government provided assistance for the protection and improvement of the habitat. Similarly, to conserve elephant population of the country, Project Elephant has been formulated to aim at restoring lost and degraded habitats of elephants, creation of migration corridors, elimination of human interference and establishment of database on the migration and population dynamics on elephants. The musk deer of Himalayan region, showed a sharp decline in its population as its musk is used in preparation of perfumes and medicines. A conservation project was launched at Kedarnath sanctuary in Uttar Pradesh under the Threatened Deer Programme of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and Natural Resources with the cooperation of the Government of India. Again the number of Manipur brow- antlered deer found in southeastern corner of the Logtak lake,

reduced to a mere 18 in the year 1977. So, this area was declared a national park in 1977, and conservation measures were initiated for protection of the species. The Kashmir stag or hangul found in Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh also showed decline in their population due to habitat destruction, over-grazing by domestic cattle, and poaching. Under joint collaboration with the IUCN and the World Wide Fund for nature (WWF), State Government of Jammu and Kashmir took up a project Hangul in 1970. The gharial, the mugger and the salt-water crocodile also became rare by the early 1970s. With the assistance of United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Government of India launched a crocodile breeding and management project initially in Orissa in 1975 and later in many other states. The programme showed remarkable results.

Table 2.1. Endangered species (mammals) in Schedule I of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 Common English Name Scientific Name Andaman Wild Pig Sus sorofa andamanensis Bharal Ovisnahura Binturong Arctictis binturong Black Buck Antelope cervicapra Brow-antlered Deer or Thamin Cervus eldi Himalayan Brown bear Ursus Arctos Capped Langur Presbytis pileatus Caracal Felis caracal Cheetah Acinonyx jubatus Chinese Pangolin Mainis pentadactyla Chinkara or Indian Gazelle Gazella gazella bennetti Clouded leopard Neofelis nebulosa Crab eating Macaque Macaca irus umbrosa Desert Cat Felis libyca Desert Fox Vulpes bucapus Dugong Dugong dugong Ermine Mustele erminea Fishing Cat Felis viverrina Four-horned antelope Tetraceros quadricornis Gangetic dolphin Platanista gangetica Gaur or Indian bison Bos gaurus Golden Cat Felis temmincki Golden Langur Presbytis geei Giant squirrel Ratufa macroura Himalayan Ibex Capra ibex Himalayan Tahr Hemitragus jemlahicus Hispid Hare Caprolagus Hispidus Hog badger Arconyx collaris Hoolock Hylobates hoolock Indian Elephant Elephas maximus Indian Lion Panthera leo persica Indian Wild Ass Equus hemionus khur

Indian Wolf Canis lupas pallipes Kashmir Stag Cervus elaphus hanglu Leaf Monkey Presbytis phayrei Leopard or Panther Panthera pardus Leopard Cat Felis bengalensis Lesser or Red Panda Ailurus fulgens Lion-tailed Macaque Macaca silenus Loris Loris tardigradus Little Indian Porpoise Neomeris phocenoides Lynx Felix lynx isabellinus Malabar Civet Viverra megasplia Malay or Sun Bear Helarctos malayanus Marbled Cat Felis marmorata Markhor Capra falconeri Mouse Deer Tragulus meminna Musk Deer Moschus moschiferus Nilgiri Langur Presbytis johni Nilgiri Tahr Hemitragus hylocrius Nyan or Great Tibetan Sheep Ovis ammon hodgsoni Palla’s Cat Felis manul Pangolin Manis crassicaudata Pygmy Hog Sus salvanius Ratel Mellivora capensis Rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis Rusty spotted Cat Felis rubiginosa Serow Capricornis sumatraenis Clawless Otter Anyx cinerea Sloth bear Melursus ursinus Slow loris Nycticebus couceang Small Travencore Flying Squirrel Petinomys fuscocapillus Snow Leopard Panthera uncia Snubfin Dolphin Oreaella brevezastris Spotted Linsang Prionodon pardicolor Swamp Deer All sub-species of Cervus duvauceli Takin or Mishmi Takin Budorcus taxicolor

Tibetan Anteplope or Chiru Panthelopes hodgsoni Tibetan Fox Vulpes ferrilatus Tibetan Gazelle Procapra picticaudata Tibetan Wild Ass Equus hemionus kiang Tiger Panthera tigris Urial or Shapu Ovis vignei Wild Buffalo Bubalus bubalis Wild Yak Bos grunniens Tibetan Wolf Canis lupus chanco

Table 2.2. Endangered species (amphibians and reptiles) in Schedule I of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 Common English Name Scientific Name Agra Monitor Lizard Varanus griseus (Daudin) Audithia Turtle Pelochelys bibroni Barred, Oval, or Yellow Monitor Varanus flavescvens Lizard Crocodiles (Including the Estuarine Crocodilus porosus and or salt water Crocodile Crocodilus palustris Terrapin Batagur basika Eastern Hill Terrapin Melanochelys tricarinata Gharial Gravialis gangeticus Ganges soft-shelled Turtle Trionyx gangeticus Golden Gecko Caloductyloides aureus Green Sea Turtle Chelonia Mydus Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata Inlscata Indian Egg eating Snake Elachistodon westermanni Indian Soft-shelled Turtle Lissemys punctata punctata Indian Tent Turtle Kachuga tecta tecta Kerala Forest Terrapin Hoesemys sylratica Large Bengal Monitor Lizard Varanus bengalensis Leathery Turtle Dermochelys coriacea Logger Head Turtle Caretta caretta Olive Back Logger Head Turtle Lepidochelys olivacea Peacock-marked Soft-shelled Turtle Trionyx hurum Pythons Genus Python Sail terrapin Kachuga kachuga Spotted black terrapin Geoclemys hamiltoni Water Lizard Varanus salvator

Table 2.3. Endangered species (birds) in Schedule I of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 Common English Name Scientific Name Andaman Teal Anas gibberifrons allagularis Assam Bamboo Partridge Bambusicola fytchii Bazas Aviceda jeordone and aviceda Leuphotes Bengal Florican Eupodotis bengalensis Black necked Crane Grus nigricollis Blood Pheasants Ithaginis cruentus tibetanus, Ithaginis Cruentus kuseri Cheer Pheasant Catreus wallichii Eastern White Stork Ciconia ciconia boyciana Forest-spotted Owlet Athene blewitti Frogmouths Genus batrachostomus Great Indian Bustard Choriotis nigriceps Great Indian Hornbill Buceros bicornis Hawks Accipitridao Hooded Crane Grus monacha Hornbills Ptilolaemus tickelli austeni, Aceros nipalensis, Rhyticeros undulates ticehursti Houbara Bustard Chlamydotis undulata Humes Bar-backed Syrmaticus humiae Pheasant Indian Pied hornbill Anthracoceros malabaricus Jerdon’s Courser Cursorius bitorquatus Lammergeier Gypaetus barbatus Large falcons Falco peregrinus, Falco biarmicus and Falco chicuera Large Whistling Teal Anatidae Lesser Florican Sypheotides indica Monal Pheasants Lophophorus impeyanus, Lophophorus Sclateri Mountain Quail Ophrysia superciliosa Narcondam Hornbill Rhyticeros (undulatus)

narcondami Nicobar Megapode Megapodius freycinet Nicobar Pigeon Caloenas nicibarica pelewensis Osprey or Fish-eating Pandion haliatetus Eagle Peacock Pheasants Polyplectron bicalcaratum Peafowl Parvo cristatus Pink-headed Duck Rhodonessa caryophyllacea Scalater’s Monal Lophhhophorus sclateri Siberian White Crane Grus leucogeranus Tibetan Snow Cock Tetraogallus tibetanus Tragopan Pheasants Tragopan melanocephalus, Tragopan blythii, Tragopan satyra, Tragopan temminckii White-bellied Sea Eagle Haliaetus leucogaster White-eared Pheasant Crossoptilon crossoptilon White Spoonbill Platalea leucorodia White-winged Wood Duck Cairina scutulata

CHAPTER 3

EMERGING CONFLICTS AND PARTICIPATORY APPROACH

The human population and wild animal population inhabiting within a common area may interact with each other in either of the two ways: coexistence or conflict. The first type of interaction, i.e., coexistence between man and animal takes place only when they remain neutral to each other. In that sense perfect coexistence between man and animal can never take place. Even in the remote past, perfect man-animal coexistence was not there. Yet that was not a conflict in true sense. Hunting of wild animals by man for his food and clothing, or killing of trespassers in the forests generally by the old or injured wild animals was never thought of as man-animal conflict at that time, rather as prey-predator relations. Man-animal conflict, in true sense, comes up only when competition between them occurs for the availability of common resource in short supply.▌ In the past, population of both the species  man and animal  were at a lower level, and population density was very high.☺ There was no scarcity of

▌ The common resource may be land for habitation, food, water, etc. In this regard it is worth mentioning that two species with similar requirements of the scarce common resource cannot coexist, and one of them is excluded through survival of the fittest. ☺ The density of population is the number of individuals residing per unit of geographical area. However, this measurement is crude because the population can occupy only certain favourable parts of the total area. The population

land required for agriculture and habitation for human population, and for natural vegetation to provide food for herbivorous animals. Thus herbivorous animals survived, and their survival in turn guaranteed the survival of carnivorous animals. But with increasing human population, land has no more remained an abundant resource. Man has been compelled to encroach animals’ habitats. Not only that, he too takes share of the resources (viz. fuel wood, thatch grass, vegetables, etc.) from the left over animals’ habitats. This creates shortage of food and shelter to wild animals. Consequently they have no other option than to come out of the forest, and roam about the human habitation in search of food. In fact, the conflict comes up when both the human population and wild animal population trespasses each other’s territories, and this intensifies when the boundaries of these territories are legally determined and legally enforced. Legal enforcement here means direct inhibition of man by law, where animal remains unaffected. The Wild Life Protection Act and the subsequent rules made by both the Central and State Governments impose restrictions on entry in protected areas. Exploitation of forest resources that deprive the wildlife has been prohibited. Grazing of livestock has not been permitted. Even no livestock has been allowed to enter in a protected area. Accordingly the laws make local people non-indigenous in the density expressed on the basis of measurements in such favourable area alone is called specific or ecological density.  Only the following persons can enter or reside in a sanctuary. They are: (a) a public servant on duty, (b) a person who has been permitted by the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorized officer to reside within the limits of the sanctuary, (c) a person who has any right over immovable property within the limits of the sanctuary, (d) a person passing through the sanctuary along a public highway, and (e) the dependants of the person referred in clause (a), clause (b) or clause (c). Apart from them permits will be granted to persons to enter in a sanctuary for the purposes of photography, scientific research, tourism, etc.

land, which they thought previously as their homeland, and where they had free access. On the other hand, the protection of wildlife has resulted in an increase in the population of some animals in some protected areas. Specifically, populations of some animals like elephant, wild boar, tiger, deer, etc. are supposed to exceed the optimum level that might be supported by the available resources in their habitats. This results in a spill over of wild animals unable to find adequate food and territory, and leads to livestock lifting, crop raiding, property destruction, and even to human injury and death.● This loss ultimately fuels the annoyance of the local people, and man-animal conflict intensifies. Figure 3.1 shows how wildlife conservation effort directly and indirectly gears up the man-animal conflict. It should be viewed from two sides. From one side, the source of conflict is the restriction on the local people to access forest resources. The restriction for the purpose of preservation of wildlife habitats, indirectly affects their benefits accrued from staying near habitats. From the other side, the source of conflict is the damage incurred to them by wild animals. Law protects wild animals and they increase in number consequently. The outcome is the direct suffering of the local people from incidents of break-in of growing animal population in search of food, space and mates, causing loss in crops, lifting of cattle, human deaths and so on. Here we cite an example to understand more clearly the gravity of this crisis. The example is about the man-animal conflict in Buxa Tiger Reserve. This protected area has a legal status of a National Park in the state of West Bengal. Major fauna in this protected area are tiger, leopard, elephant, Himalayan black bear, barking deer, gaur, pangolin, etc. Buxa

● A survey in mid-1980s indicated a conservative total of 629 animal attacks on human life including 485 fatalities during the period 1970 and 1984.

has an area of about 117 square kilometer in Jalpaiguri district. Straying of wild elephants in search of food is a major cause of man-animal conflict in this area. Table 3.1 shows that all the persons killed by wild animals during 1998-2001 were due to wild elephants, although leopards injured a number of persons. Villagers in the vicinity of the forest area also suffer from crop raiding by wild animals, and among the animals wild elephants were mainly responsible for such action. As a reaction to this harm caused by wild animals, villagers often attack animals. The villagers killed about three elephants, and also other animals during 1998-2001. Forest authorities for such offences took legal actions. But the consequence of such legal actions was the villagers’ hostility towards forest employees. A number of assaults on the forest staffs by the villagers were reported during the said period. The forest staffs often got injured, and in some incidents even they died because of the physical attack on them. Thus the resulting conflict leads towards hostility. Such hostility has even extended to considerable local support for and involvement in animal and timber poaching. Here arise serious problems in protecting wildlife, especially, in solving complexities that crop up among discontent villagers around the protected areas. Over three million people in India reside within protected areas, and several million more in their adjacent areas. Local communities have historically met various livelihood requirements from these forests and grasslands, including grazing, fuel wood, herbs and medicinal plants, animal and animal products, bark, leaves, fruits and honey. Restriction on taking out of such products, and attempt to relocate entire villages outside protected areas causes tension between the functionaries of the Government and the users of these resources. This is a typical problem in all the developing countries, and participatory conservation has been considered to be a solution to this problem. However, in the world there are two opposing

ways of thinking about conservation. One is an exclusionist approach and the other is a participatory approach, which opposes the exclusionist policy. The former policy seeks to exclude resident people from within protected areas, restrict local human access to them, and prohibit customary use rights. The other policy is in favour of the rights of resident people within the forests and sees no ineluctable hostility between humans and animals. The advocates of the policy think that total exclusion is ecologically unsound, practically unviable and socially unjust. Among these two opposing policies exclusionary approach is problematic, because the removal of humans from ecosystems that have been subject to human use for many centuries could have unforeseen and potentially undesirable environmental consequences, although the reduction of unsustainable practices would be ecologically beneficial. Moreover, the exclusion of resident people by the state–initiated conservation efforts from areas where they had access in the past, has contributed over the decades to an almost uniform absence of local support and led towards hostility. There has been a growing recognition of the difficulties associated with implementing such unpopular conservation policies and strategies. So over the past decade, in an increasing impulsion nationally and internationally, new policies have emerged. These are involvement of resident people in the management of local resources, i.e., towards participatory policies. In India, also, the National Forest Policy of 1988 lays stress on the active involvement of all fringe population in the management and development of forest resource. In 1990, the Government of India passed a significant resolution providing specific guidelines regarding the formation, functioning, rights and responsibilities of community forest management groups. The Government also launched a centrally sponsored scheme

called Eco-development around National Parks and Sanctuaries in the Eighth five-year plan. Eco-development is a “site-specific package of measures developed through people’s participation with the objective of promoting sustainable use of land and other resources, as well as on-farm and off-farm income generating activities, which are not deleterious to the values of protected areas”. Eco-development is primarily a joint effort between the Government and the non- government organizations (NGOs), and also the affected people. Here the forest department plays a facilitating role. For example, the conservation area management committees in the case of National Parks and sanctuaries consist of government officials, local community representatives, and independent experts. Generally, their activities include

 Active involvement of village communities in the protection and preservation of biodiversity and ecosystem.  Promotion of conservation awareness values for long-term sustainable utilization of natural resources by reducing biotic pressure on the protected areas.  Improvement of socio-economic conditions of forest and fringe villages through some prioritized, site-specific and need-based eco-development packages, having integration with activities of other government departments and NGOs.  Generation of alternative employment to reduce traditional dependency on forests, through provision of vocational training and inputs.  Reduction of man-animal conflict and improvement of sanctuary-people interface through various measures like awareness generation programme, payment of compensation or exgratia grants to affected people, etc.

Thus eco-development is not just a programme for wildlife conservation, but is also a programme meant for better lives of local people. It is a process, and not just a one-time action. The Indian experiment with eco-development has received acclaim. There are still some problems associated with its functioning, and the overall structuring of the program is yet to be done. However, there has certainly been a radical shift in the manner in which wildlife are now to be managed.

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION

RESTRICTION PROTECTION

HUMAN ENTRY AND USE WILDLIFE AND POPULATION ITS HABITAT

SOCIO- INCREASE IN BENEFITS ECONOMIC ANIMAL POPULATION ACTIVITIES

MAN-ANIMAL CONFLICT

SPILL OVER DAMAGE

Fig. 3.1. Sources of man-animal conflict

Elephant population trend in North Bengal Year Population 1978 150 1989 173 2000 292

Animal attack on human during Crop raiding by animals 1998-2001 Animals Crops Animals Number Number Elephant, Paddy, Killed Injured Bison, Maize, Elephant 13 8 Wild pig, Vegetables Leopard 0 11 Etc.

Killing of wild animals during 1998-2001 Cases of illegal felling during 1999-2001 Animals Number killed Number Timber Elephant 3 Of cases Seized Bison 2 3 Sambar 1 3338 6605 m Barking deer 2

Assault on forest staff Legal action initiated during 1998-2001 FIR lodged Number Injured Dead

Arrested 39 37 2 Under trial

Table 3.2. An example of man-animal conflict

CHAPTER 4

ECONOMICS OF MAN-ANIMAL CONFLICT

The effectiveness of the participatory approach of conservation may be judged in the light of the economics of man-animal conflict. In reality, man-animal conflict arises out of some economic problems like lesser benefit-cost ratio brought about by wild animals and their conservation. In the context of wildlife, cost means cost of damage brought about by wild animals, and benefit means the utilization values of wildlife and its habitat (see figure 3.1). When this cost is very high in comparison with the benefit, then the obvious outcome would be a conflict. However, providing the affected people with appropriate compensation could minimize this conflict. Compensating the victims effectively lessens cost of damage, which in turn increases the benefit-cost ratio. Similarly, generation of alternative employment in forest and fringe villages would reduce traditional dependency on animals’ habitat, and thus might improve the benefit-cost relation. But these are all about material benefits and costs. People also assign values to wildlife from a variety of considerations other than utilization. These are according to S. R. Kellert o Utilization value that reflects the traditional notion of material benefit derived from exploiting animal and nature to satisfy various human needs and desires.

o Naturalistic value, which reflects the pleasure one gets from exploring and discovering nature’s complexity and variety. o Ecologistic value which reflects studying of the biological functioning of organisms and their habitat. o Aesthetic value that is associated with feelings of integrity, harmony and balance in nature. o Symbolic value which reflects people’s tendency to use animal and nature for communication and thought. o Doministic value which reflects people’s interest in exercising mastery and control over animals. o Humanistic value that is associated with the emotional bondage with animals. o Moralistic value that is associated with concern for ethical treatment of animals and nature. o Negativistic value which reflects avoidance of animals for reasons of fear, dislike, or indifference.

It is assumed that by measuring this wildlife related values through a systematic study it might be possible to manage wildlife in a more socially acceptable manner. These values help in fully understanding trends in people’s perception and uses of animals and natural environment. M. N. Murthy and S. Menkhaus also described wildlife values almost in the same way. According to them, wildlife has two major values: use value and non-use value. Use value is the direct benefit that is obtained from the habitat (viz., harvests of biological resources and recreation). They categorized non-use value as o Existence value that is associated with benefits other than direct use such as recreation, medicinal benefits, etc. o Bequest value that reflects one’s willingness to preserve a resource for future generation.

o Option value that reflects one’s willingness to preserve a protected area to ensure its existence for possible future visits. o Aesthetic value.

Murthy and Menkhaus defined total value as sum of use values and non-use values, and estimated it in Keoladeo National Park using Contingent Valuation Method.▌ However, they did not take into account the negativistic value, which is supposed to be very important in the context of wildlife conservation. In this regard, a brief introduction of the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) is necessary. The CVM enables economic values to be estimated directly for a wide range of commodities not traded in the market. Any CVM exercise can be split into five stages:

 Stage 1 involves setting up of a hypothetical market for the environmental goods in question (viz., the non-use values of wildlife). A sample is to be drawn from the relevant population in the hypothetical market. Then a survey is to be conducted among the individuals in the sample.  Stage 2 consists of asking the respondents to state their willingness to pay (WTP) for the increase in environmental quality (viz., the conservation of wildlife), which is the subject of the survey.  Stage 3 involves calculation of sample mean WTP.  Stage 4 consists of estimating a curve, called the bid curve, using WTP as the dependent variable and a set of explanatory variables like income, education, age etc.

▌ Contingent valuation consists of surveying individuals directly about the value they attach to environmental goods and services.

 Stage 5 includes an aggregation process. Here the mean WTP is converted to population total value. This total value gives the value of the environmental good in question. Actually, a time horizon needs to be chosen, over which the population total value should be aggregated to get the true value of the environmental good.

There are several ways to derive WTP. Major formats among them are Open-ended question ─ Respondents are asked for their maximum WTP with no value being suggested to them. Closed-ended referendum ─ A single payment is suggested, to which respondents either agree or disagree (yes/no reply). Such responses are often known as dichotomous choice (DC) responses. Payment card ─ Respondents are presented with a range of values listed on a card, based upon their income levels. Bidding game ─ The first step of this procedure is to suggest the respondents with a single price, which they would either accept or reject (i.e., closed-ended referendum). Then they are presented with higher and higher amounts, depending upon their response, till their maximum WTP is reached.

It has been observed that DC format (i.e., the closed-ended referendum) has a number of advantages over others. In open- ended questions, respondents have often found it difficult to answer, especially when they have no prior experience of trading with the commodity in question. Moreover, environmental goods and services are more often public goods. Hence respondents will have an incentive to understate their maximum WTP and free ride. On the other hand, payment card format is subject to

implied values that may direct the respondents away from their imputed values for environmental goods. But respondents under DC are faced with fixed prices for goods and services, and have to decide whether to buy or not at this fixed price. So it is easier to convey the provision rule to respondents, and the amount of environmental improvement that respondents are buying may be easier to make clear. Many research works based on CVM have been done and some are going on, regarding valuation of wildlife and ecosystem services and their value to society (see References). Yet CVM has some deficiencies with respect to valuation of public goods. B. S. Jorgenson, G. J. Syme, B. J. Bishop and B. E. Nancarrow tried to analyze some aspects of these deficiencies in a study in 1999. It is observed that in all CVM analyses, a proportion of respondent refuse to pay any amount for a public good because of some mitigating circumstance (e.g., not being in a position to afford it), or some desertion regarding a procedural aspect of a contingent valuation itself. A significant number of respondents to contingent valuation surveys either tend to set a zero bid or refuses to state a bid at all, for reasons associated with the process of valuation. These protest responses cannot be included in benefit-cost analysis (BCA), as they do not represent true economic values. In this book, however, WTP has not been taken into account for benefit-cost analysis. Only material benefits and costs have been used to evaluate benefit-cost ratio (see figure 4.1). Effect of compensation on benefit-cost ratio has also been observed. In the context of WTP, influences of benefits and losses, and other socio-economic variables like income, education, EDC membership, etc. on WTP has been estimated using a logistic regression model. Values of the regression coefficients indicate how far these variables dictate one’s WTP. People’s arguments behind their willingness to pay for wildlife conservation have

also been noted. Then this data has been analysed in the light of economic and non-economic aspects to find out the influence of non-use values of wildlife on WTP. In addition, people’s attitude towards wild animal has been captured here through their active participation in attacking (in the form of chasing or injuring) wild animals to safeguard assets, crops, etc. Their participation rate has finally been related to the benefits accrued from forests, and the costs incurred by wild animals. This study is based on a field survey in and around two wildlife sanctuaries in West Bengal conducted in the year of 1999-2000.

PARTICIPATORY CONSERVATION

COMPENSATION

COST OF DAMAGE

WILDLIFE USE VALUE BENEFIT- COST RELATION

WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR SOCIO- CONSERVATION ECONOMIC (MONEY OR DEVELOPMENT TIME)

NON-USE AWARENESS PROGRAMME VALUE

Fig. 4.1. Economics of man-animal conflict

CHAPTER 5

BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF SELECTED SANCTUARIES

India has a wide network of protected areas for wildlife conservation. The distribution of these areas is shown in the map of the country in figure 5.1. It is distributed from north to south and east to west. Two protected areas in the east were selected for an in-depth study. These selected areas were Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary and Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary. Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (JWLS) lies in the district of Jalpaiguri, West Bengal, and is situated between the latitudes of 25°58" and 27°45" in the North and longitudes of 89°08" and 89°55" in the East. Total area of the sanctuary is at present 216.51 square kilometers. The other selected area, Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (MWLS) is situated in the foothills of the Eastern Himalayas in West Bengal. It has a total notified area of 158.04 square kilometers. The sanctuary lies within the latitudes of 26055'33" and 26047'54" in the North and longitudes of 88033'31" and 88023'36" in the East. This sanctuary is situated mostly in the district of Darjeeling. It also includes the Lalltong block of forest falling within the district of Jalpaiguri. Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary forms the general reserve for the great Indian one-horned rhinoceros. According to 1991 census there were 41 rhinos (two per cent of global population) in this sanctuary. It also gives protection to a number of animal species to prevent their extinction (see Table 5.1). This sanctuary

has 33 species of carnivores and herbivores, approximately 230 species of birds, 16 species of reptiles, 8 species of turtles, 30 species of fish and a host of other micro fauna. JWLS is also very rich in wild flora. It contains a total of 585 identified species. Out of them 71 grass species, 19 orchid species and 47 endangered plant species are of conservational importance. The entire forest of JWLS falls under the north Indian moist tropical forest. On the basis of composition of the crop, the forest can be classified into six distinct types. They are as follows: Riverine Forest, Sal Forest, Wet mixed forest, Semi ever green forest, Ever green forest, and Savannah forest.

Table 5.1 Animal Species found in Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary

Species Scientific name Rhinoceros Rhinocerous Unicornis Gaur Bog Gaugus Elephant Elephas Maximus Sloth Beer Melursus Ursinus Tiger Panthera Tigris Leopard Parthera Paradus Hog Badger Arc Tonyn Collaris Hispid Hare Capra Lagus Bengalensis Bengal Florican Eupodotis Bengalensis Python Python Reticulates Indian Pangolin Manis Erassi Caudata Source: Management Plan of Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary, 1997.

Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary analogous to other forests in India, experiences some serious problems. They are poaching of rhino, tiger, elephant and other wild animals, illicit felling of

timber and collection of firewood and non-timber forest produce. Poaching of rhinos take place mainly due to tremendous demand for its horn in the international market. There exists a well- connected international network that operates in this practice - including mafia, middlemen and local people. The mafia and middlemen take advantage of the poverty of local people and engage them for field operations. The rhino horns fetch high price in the international market of smuggled goods, yet the actual poachers (local people) get only a fraction. The unlawful poaching is very common and easy affairs as the forest department lack sophisticated firearms and patrolling vehicles to check the miscreants. Close proximity of Bangladesh and Bhutan worsens the situation, as these are the easy hideouts of the poachers and their agents. Lack of conservation awareness of the local people adds to this problem. Apart from the problems of poaching, the sanctuary is facing other serious problems. Firstly, people of fringe villages often drive their cattle to the forest for grazing. This creates competition for fodder among cattle and wild herbivores, and cattle borne diseases like anthrax are being spread among the wild animals. Secondly, the residents in and around the sanctuary need forest products like firewood, grass, thatch etc. that have also the potential to damage the habitat of rhinoceros and other wild animals. Thirdly, the sanctuary often experiences straying of wild animals like elephants and gaurs from the protected area to the adjoining villages, mainly during the agriculture crop seasons for crop raiding. In this act not only the crops are devastated, but also villagers get injured or killed. During the post harvest season, sometimes elephants raid houses of the villagers for food grains and salts, and cause damages to their properties. Thus the man-animal conflict is of immense dimension in this sanctuary.

Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary has also its significance in many ways. The sanctuary harbours a very large variety of fauna. It plays a significant role because this area falls under the migrating route of the elephants. The snow fed perennial river Tista flows along the eastern boundary and it gives shelter to a large number of migrant water birds. Mahanadi, another important river is a great modifier of local climate and exerts a significant environmental impact on the adjacent towns and villages. The range of animal species found in the sanctuary is varied (see Table 5.2). Apart from these species mentioned in the table monkeys, langurs, wild cats and civets are also found in these areas. Nearly 300 birds species are generally observed here. Among them Hornbills, Hawks, Swallows, Cuckoos, Pigeons, Finches, Larks, Eagles, Owls, Shrikes, Woodpeckers, etc. are important. Since the forest lies partly in plains and partly in hills, the composition of crop differs according to the type of forest. In the plains there is grassland amongst which the main grasses are Phragmitis Karka and Saccharum munja. Plains’ forests consist of Khair-Sisoo forest, Simul-Siris forest, Plains Sal forest, Dry mixed forest and Wet mixed forest. Hill forests comprise of Lower Hill Sal forest, Lower Hill Dry Mixed and Wet Mixed forests, and Middle Hill forests. In plains Teak and Sal are important plants and in hills species like Sal, Teak, Cinchona etc. are important species. MWLS also faces similar problems like encroachment, hunting, poaching, and livestock grazing as in JWLS. As far as the encroachment is concerned, it is found that forest villagers are engulfing some part of the sanctuary for agricultural purposes. Incidences of poaching have been found in this area in spite of stringent protection measures. Animals in this sanctuary are victims of anthrax infection due to cattle grazing as well. Straying of wild animals from the protected area into the

adjoining human habitation is a common problem in this sanctuary. Therefore, reasons for man-animal conflict persist in MWLS like that in JWLS.

Table 5.2. Animal species found in Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary

Name Scientific Name Goat Serow Capricornis Sumatraenesis Himalayan Black bear Selenarctos Thibetanus Tiger Panthera Tigris Gaur Bos Gaurus Cheetal Axis Sambar Cervus Unicolor Niger Elephants Elephas Maximas Indicus barking deer Muntiacus Muntjak Wild boar Sus Scrofa Jackals Canis Aureus Rhesus Monkey Macca Mulatta Assamese Macaque Macaca Assamenis Langur Presbytis Entellus Gibbon Hylobates Hoolock Source: Management Plan of Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary, 1997.

In this respect, the State Government has proposed some measures to reduce man-animal conflict. It has been suggested that the entire boundary of both the sanctuaries having interface with the villages would be erected with power fencing. The local eco-development committees would be involved in maintenance of the fencing. Anti-depredation voluntary squads would be constituted in the adjoining areas for the purpose of systematic driving of wild elephants. The villagers in the fringe areas would be encouraged to go for cultivation of non-edible cash crops.

Quick processing of the applications would be ensured in case of human death as well as for crop damage and damage of houses. Finally, awareness generation programmes would be carried out with the help of eco-development committees for conservation of wild animals.

Table 5.3. Budgetary allocation (in percentage) for a period of 5 years

Item JWLS MWLS

Consolidation, infrastructure development, 17.09 23.20 protection, and communication

Habitat improvement 10.39 12.84

Reduction of man-animal conflict 4.39 6.54

Reduction of grazing pressure 1.13 12.64

Veterinary care for wild animals, departmental 1.84 2.09 elephants and fringe area cattle

Training, monitoring and research 3.29 3.57

Eco-tourism, publicity and awareness generation 2.49 4.27

Captive breeding and reintroduction programme 1.39 1.74

Eco-development activities 57.99 33.11

Total 100.00 100.00

Emphasis on man-animal conflict in the management plans of these two sanctuaries could be well understood if we look at the budgetary allocations for the period of five years during 2002-03 to 2006-07. Table 5.3 shows that budgetary allocation for reduction of man-animal conflict is less than 10 per cent of the total in cases of both the sanctuaries. This item includes only erection of power fencing, purchase of tranquilising guns and special nets for trapping wild animals, constitution of anti- depredation voluntary squads, etc. But reduction of man-animal conflict means something in addition. It means conservation awareness, reducing the dependence on forest products, socio- economic development, and so on. So taking all these into consideration, the allocation for reduction of conflict becomes more than 65 per cent in the case of JWLS, and more than 55 per cent in the case of MWLS. One important component in this item is eco-development activities. It is meant for income generating activities, training, etc. However, the expected expenditures for compensating the affected people were not included in the estimated budget. Yet it is evident from the budgetary allocations, in spite of omitting this item that management plan of the sanctuaries were primarily aimed at human management. Attention towards habitat improvement was given next preference.

CHAPTER 6

WHO ARE THE RESPONDENTS?

Any study on conflicts between people and wild animals will not be justified unless we know who these people are. Hence the primary task in such study is to make known the socio-economic background of the people who are to be managed in the course of wildlife conservation. In this context, primary data is needed from field survey. It is, however, a very difficult task to survey the total population in all the forest and fringe villages with a long questionnaire. In this regard sample survey is helpful. It gives us almost the same information as complete enumeration, and the errors in results remain within bound if appropriate sampling techniques are adopted. The sampling technique that we have adopted in this study is stratified random sampling. The errors associated with this sampling technique are not very much significant. In Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary, there are 3 forest villages and 32 fringe villages. In 3 forest villages, total population was around 1000, and total population in 32 fringe villages was about 87,200 comprising about 15,022 families. For the purpose of this study eight fringe villages and two forest villages were selected, and from each village about 35 households were chosen using random sampling technique. The selected villages were Uttar Madarihat, Uttar Khairbari, Madhya Madarihat, Subhasnagar in Madarihat /Birpara block, Paschim-Satali in Kalchini block, Munshipara, Natunpara, Jaldapara, Suripara, Sirubari in

Alipurduar-I block. Among the surveyed households, 49 per cent belonged to the income group up to Rs.15000 per annum, 33 per cent belonged to the income group of Rs.15000 – Rs.30000 per annum, and 18 percent belonged to the income group above Rs.30000 per annum (see Table 6.1).

Table 6.1. Family profile and income level

Statistics Income groups in JWLS Income groups in (Rupees per annum) MWLS (Rupees per annum) Below 15000- Above Below 15000- Above 15000 30000 30000 15000 30000 30000 Percentage of 49 33 18 37 33 30 households Male (number) 1.47 2.19 2.59 1.52 2.14 2.22 Female 1.40 1.72 2.15 1.42 1.92 2.11 (number Child (number) 1.46 1.89 1.67 1.78 1.79 1.88 Average family 4.33 5.81 6.41 4.72 5.85 6.21 size Total number of 1.36 1.83 1.59 1.42 1.78 1.67 employed persons Yearly income 13331 22648 41578 10995 20829 52216 Percentage of 70.00 87.23 74.07 89.81 89.03 93.73 households having own agricultural land

In Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary, there are as many as 40 mouzas having a total population of 31014 as per 1991 census including forest villages. For the purpose of the study, ten

villages were chosen in and around the sanctuary using random sampling technique. The selected villages were Tenth Mile in Jalpaiguri block, Champta and Koklong in Kurseong block, Majua in Jalpaiguri-I block, Khairani and Punding in Mahanadi block, Gulma in Singhimari block, Uttar Polash and Paharumauja in Matigarha, Singhijhora in Raigunge block. Among the surveyed households in MWLS, 37 per cent belonged to the income group of upto Rs.15000 per annum, 33 per cent belonged to the income group of Rs.15000 – Rs.30000 per annum, and 30 percent belonged to the income group of above Rs.30000 per annum.

Table 6.2. Average age of respondents

Sanctuary Gender Proportion of the Average age respondents (%) (Year) JWLS Male 65 44 Female 35 34 Male 64 44 MWLS Female 36 35

During the survey both the male and female respondents were selected to remove bias in the results. Proportion of male and female respondents and their average age are presented in Table 6.2. It shows that proportion of male and female, and their age distributions were almost equal in selected samples in both the sanctuaries. But the educational levels of the respondents were not same in two sanctuaries (see Table 6.3). Proportion of illiterates and just literates were higher in MWLS than in JWLS. In JWLS greater proportion of female was found to have higher education as compared to MWLS. However, the occupational pattern of the villagers was slightly better in MWLS. Here only

their primary occupation has been considered. Number of service holders in organized sector was higher among the respondents in this sanctuary (see Table 6.4). Perhaps for this reason, the average annual income of the respondents belonging to highest income group was higher than those in JWLS. Proportion of working-women was also much higher in MWLS.

Table 6.3. Educational level of respondents

Educational level Proportion of the Proportion of the respondents in JWLS respondents in MWLS (%) (%) Male Female Male Female Illiterate 0.0 2.0 18.3 32.9 Literate 6.4 11.8 41.3 35.7 Below Class X 64.5 49.0 33.3 21.4 Secondary 14.0 21.5 4.0 4.3 Higher Secondary 4.3 7.8 1.6 2.9 Graduate 9.7 5.9 0.8 2.8 Post Graduate 1.1 2.0 0.7 0.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

It is to be mentioned here that selling of forest products like wood, thatch, etc. was primary occupation of some villagers in Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary. The number of persons having this occupation was not very insignificant among the respondents in MWLS. But this occupation was totally absent among the villagers in Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary if only their primary occupation is considered. Collection of firewood from the forest and its trading in the market was, of course, occupations of some villagers in JWLS, but they reported those as their subsidiary occupations (see Table 6.5). Other subsidiary occupations of the

respondents in JWLS were trading of fruits, vegetables, country liquor, etc. which has not been included in the table.

Table 6.4. Occupational (primary) pattern of the respondents

Occupation Percentage of Percentage of respondents in respondents in JWLS MWLS Male Female Male Female Housewife 0.0 84.2 0.0 61.4 Agriculture 68.8 2.0 57.9 18.6 Agricultural laborer 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 Wood/Kher/Charcoal seller 0.0 0.0 3.2 1.4 Dairy/poultry/small business 6.5 2.0 3.2 0.0 Forest/tea garden laborer 10.8 3.9 9.9 7.1 * Service 9.6 0.0 19.9 4.3 Political person 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 Rickshaw/van/thella puller 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 ** Private service 0.0 2.0 1.6 2.9 Student 2.1 5.9 1.6 4.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 * Service includes teaching, office jobs and government service. ** Private service includes services of astrologer, mechanic, priest, etc.

Observing the overall feature of the people, thus it may be concluded that the socio-economic conditions of the villagers in and around these two sanctuaries were dissimilar to some extent. In JWLS the people were more educated than the people in MWLS, whereas people in MWLS, especially the women, were engaged in some occupations rather than being mere housewives. But it is to be noted that the average family income

of low and middle-income groups in the later sanctuary was comparatively lower. It indicates the misery of the majority of the people in the forest and fringe villages of Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary.

Table 6.5. Occupational (subsidiary) pattern of the respondents

Occupation Percentage of Percentage of respondents in respondents in JWLS MWLS Male Female Male Female No subsidiary occupation 35.5 96.1 43.6 87.2 Agriculture 3.2 - 5.6 1.4 Agricultural laborer - - - - Wood/Kher/Charcoal seller 8.6 - 5.6 5.7 Dairy/poultry/small business 33.4 - 12.7 - Forest/tea garden laborer 16.1 3.9 30.9 5.7 * Service - - - - Political person - - - - Rickshaw/van/thella puller 1.1 - - - ** Private service 2.1 - 1.6 - Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 * Service includes teaching, office jobs and government service. ** Private service includes services of astrologer, mechanic, priest, etc.

It is to be mentioned here that the above respondents included Bengalis, Nepalese and members of Scheduled Tribes. In that sense, the sample selected for this study was heterogeneous in character. However, no attempt has been made in this study to analyse the survey data with respect to any specific caste or creed, so that a more general inference can be drawn rather than coming to any region-specific or caste-specific conclusion.

CHAPTER 7

CROP RAIDING AND EXTENT OF LOSS

The central issue of any study on man-animal conflict is to make out how animals get in the way of humans day-to-day socio- economic activities (see figure 3.1). Generally, the socio- economic activities of the people in India, which are much affected by wild animals, are agriculture, animal husbandry, collection of forest products, and the people’s living. Agriculture is hampered due to damage of crops by wild animals, animal husbandry is spoiled by cattle lifting, collection of forest products is often hindered due to fierce attack by wild animals, and people’s living sometimes become miserable due to destruction of their living places by animals. In the surveyed area, however, agriculture has been observed to be that economic activity of the people, which is mostly affected due to wildlife invasion. But agriculture is the principal activity of most of the villagers. Therefore, one major reason for man-animal conflict in that area is the loss of crops due to wild animals. Wild animals in herd or solitary invade agricultural fields during the crop season in search of food. In this process the animals not only eat up some crops as food but also damage a portion as they hang around in the field. The loss of crop in this course of invasion is a crucial economic crisis to the villagers, and is mentioned frequently in wildlife related literatures. But little initiative has been taken so far to measure the extent of

such losses. Our major objective in this chapter is, therefore, to quantify this loss, and to know who the animals responsible are for such acts.

Table 7.1. Frequency of incidents of crop raiding per household Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary Villages Distance Frequency Villages Distance Frequency from the of crop from the of crop forest raiding forest raiding (Km) during last (Km) during last 10 years 10 years Uttar 0.0 7.4 Tenth Mile 0.0 7.3 Madarihat Paschim 1.0 3.7 Champta 0.0 9.0 Satali Munshipara 0.0 4.5 Majua 3.0 0.5

Natunpara 0.5 4.2 Khairani 0.0 6.5

Jaldapara 0.0 5.1 Punding 0.0 5.0

Uttar 1.0 4.5 Gulma 0.0 9.5 Khairbari Madhya 0.5 2.0 Koklong 0.0 2.0 Madarihat Suripara 0.5 3.5 Uttar 5.0 0.0 Polash Sirubari 0.0 5.5 Paharu 0.0 3.0 Mauja Subhash 0.0 0.5 Singhijhora 0.0 5.5 Nagar Average 4.1 4.8

The crisis of crop raiding by wild animals could be well understood if we look at the Table 7.1. This table gives us the information regarding the average frequency of incidents of crop raiding in an agricultural field belonging to a household during 1990s. In JWLS, households experienced animal attacks in their agricultural land more than four times on an average during the last decade. In MWLS again this number was nearly five times in 1990s. The frequency of attack varies from village to village. In some villages, the event of crop raiding by wild animals was about once in a year. Occurrences of animal attack on crop, however, declined with distance of the village from the forest. In a village, which is situated 5 kilometers away from the forest in MWLS, occurrence of crop raiding was totally absent during the last ten years.

Table 7.2. Animals responsible for crop raiding (in percentage) Crop Percentage of attacks Percentage of attacks Type In JWLS by in MWLS by Ele- Wild Mon- Deer Ele- Wild Mon- Deer phant boar key phant boar key Paddy 98 2 - - 100 - - - Corn 100 - - - 98 1 1 - Wheat 100 100 - - - Jute 100 - - - - Vegetable - - - 100 - - - - Mustard 100 - - - 100 - - - Mulberry ------100

Next, it will be interesting to know which types of crops are vulnerable to animal attacks. The crops that had been cultivated in the forest and fringe villages of Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary

in the year of survey were paddy, wheat, corn, mustard, jute and vegetables, and those in the forest and fringe villages of Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary were paddy, wheat, corn, mustard, jute and mulberry. Among those crops, paddy was most preferred by wild elephants. Table 7.2 shows the percentage of incidents of crop raiding by different types of animal species in the year of survey. According to the results in the table, wild elephants damage not only paddy but corn and jute also. Loss of vegetables was mainly due to deer. Also monkeys and wild boar were partly responsible for damage of paddy and corn.

Table 7.3. Crop-wise allocation of land per household

Crop types Average area of land in Average area of land in JWLS (acre) MWLS (acre) Paddy 1.94 1.38 Wheat 0.08 0.23 Corn 0.25 0.88 Mustard 0.03 0.03 Jute 0.23 0.28 Vegetables 0.37 - Mulberry - 0.07

However, these figures in tables 1 and 2 only indicate the incidents of crop raiding by wild animals, but do not provide the extent of damage. The extent of damage could be realized only if we have the knowledge about the cropping pattern in this region. The allocation of land for cultivation of each type of crop in the forest and fringe villages of these two sanctuaries is shown in Table 7.3. It shows the average area of agricultural land per household that was allocated to different types of crops. Paddy

was the major crop in the villages of two sanctuaries. Next to it was corn in MWLS and vegetable in JWLS. Cultivation of jute was also given priority with respect to allocation of land.

Table 7.4. Crop-wise return and loss per household from agriculture

Crop types Revenue in JWLS (in Revenue in MWLS (in rupees) rupees) Net return Loss Net return Loss Paddy 5095 1990 4748 2367 (21.54) (27.83) Wheat 330 107 1160 565 (19.18) (28.64) Corn 404 281 1872 1069 (31.47) (30.30) Mustard 96 31 140 80 (18.67) (30.77) Jute 877 268 700 370 (17.37) (27.01) Vegetables 1023 175 - - (10.68) Mulberry - - 794 183 (18.19) Total 7825 2852 9414 4634 (20.32) (27.85) Note: Figures within bracket indicate percentage of loss in Total Produce. Total Produce=Net Return+Input Cost+Damage. (All are measured in terms of value.)

Net returns from cultivation in the allocated lands, measured in monetary value, are presented in Table 7.4, along with the amount of damage. Net returns are the values of crops that villagers recovered after animal raid minus the input costs. It is clear from the table that net returns would be more if there were no damage caused by wild animals. In JWLS, about 66 per cent of the net returns came from paddy (see figure 7.1), whereas in MWLS the net return from paddy was nearly 51 per cent (see figure 7.2). These numbers would be a little bit higher if crop raiding could be prevented. In terms of net return corn was the next important crop in MWLS (about 21 per cent of the total return), and vegetable was that in JWLS (nearly 13 per cent). But production of some crops, mainly paddy and corn, was most affected in both the sanctuaries because of wild animals incursion. The loss of paddy was nearly 22 per cent of the total produce in JWLS and nearly 28 per cent of the total produce in MWLS. In case of corn, the loss was more than 31 per cent of the total produce in JWLS and more than 30 per cent in MWLS. Thus the overall loss was more than 20 per cent in JWLS and nearly 28 per cent in MWLS. The loss in the villages of Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary is observed to be more than the loss in the villages of Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary, since this sanctuary is situated at the western end of the elephants’ migration route. Another interesting observation from the survey is that the loss of crops due to animals other than elephant, for example deer, was not so much extensive as was observed in the cases of vegetable and mulberry. Thus the extent of loss was enormous in the year of survey. Villagers had to sacrifice sufficient amount of their agricultural produce to wild animals (see figure 7.3). According to the villagers, this was a common phenomenon and used to occur

 Net Return = Total Produce – Damage – Input Cost

every year almost with the same degree. One way to decrease such losses might be a change in the cropping pattern. The State Government is now planning to encourage the villagers to go for cultivation of non-edible cash crops. In that case the extent of damage is expected to be lower. But it appears to be an impossible task to persuade villagers to switch over completely to cultivation of non-edible cash crops only, as cultivation of food crops like paddy, wheat, etc. are the subsistence farming of a large section of the villagers. Moreover, there is no assurance that the other crops would not be spoiled by wildlife, since it was observed that wild animals had damaged almost all types of crops in this region. The degree of damage, however, was different for different crops. Cultivation of crops like mulberry in MWLS, vegetables, jute and mustard in JWLS suffered less than that of paddy, wheat and corn. Therefore, the cropping pattern should be planned in such a way that the loss is minimized, keeping in mind the financial constraint and essential needs of the villagers at the same time. A theoretical model for such a problem could be suggested as follows:

Objective of the model:

Maximize the total return from cultivation of a number (say, N types) of crops.

Constraints of the model:

1. Return from the ith crop = total produce - input cost – damage, for i = 1 to N 2. Proportion of the damage by wild animals is assumed to be the same as at present. 3. Sum of the input costs required for cultivation of N types of crops must not exceed the current expenditure.

4. Total area allocated for all types of crops in a particular season must not exceed the land available to the household. 5. Quantity of food crops recovered by the household after the damage caused by wild animals must not be less than the present level of availability for its own consumption.

Such a model can be formulated as a linear programming problem, and can be solved using simplex method. But then the model would not reflect the reality, since it has some rigidity, especially, in constraint 2. It can never be said that a certain fixed number would always be the proportion of damage of crops caused by wild animals. Both the incidents of crop raiding and extents of damage are random phenomenon. They are not prefixed, and vary from time to time and from place to place. So, in this case an appropriate model would be that of risk programming. Risk programming captures the randomness in a problem. It maximizes the expected total return from cultivation of all crops less a risk aversion coefficient times the variance of total return from cultivation. The value of the risk aversion coefficient reflects the risk-taking attitude of a farmer. When its value is equal to zero, then the farmer will be maximum risk- taker, and if its value is equal to one, then he will be completely risk-averse. The farmer will be risk-neutral, when the value of the coefficient is equal to half. The expected value and the variance are generally computed from historical data. Based on

 This objective function has been derived using the expected utility hypothesis. Mathematical form of such an objective function is

Z   j x j  ij xi x j , j i j where μ and σ are respectively the mean and the variance of the variable x (here the return from cultivation), and  is the risk aversion coefficient.

these computed values, a risk-programming model determines the optimum land size that is to be allocated for cultivation of each type of crop. In this risk-programming model, the second constraint should no more be required because it becomes redundant. Actually, the risk of damage of crops by wild animals is taken care of through the variance of outputs in the objective function.

mulberry 8% jute mustard7% 1%

paddy corn 51% 21%

wheat 12%

Fig. 7.1. Return from cultivation of different crops in JWLS

vegetables 13%

jute 11% mustard corn1% 5% wheat paddy 4% 66%

Fig. 7.2. Return from cultivation of different crops in MWLS

Fig. 7.3. Distribution of loss, input cost and net return

CHAPTER 8

LOSS OF LIFE AND ASSET

People in the villages of Jaldapara and Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary also suffer other losses in addition to the damage of their crops by wild animals. During the post harvest season wild elephants often raid human habitats in search of stored food grains and salts. In this course, animals damage huts of the villagers and injure them. Sometimes those injuries become fatal and cause death. These events, obviously, lead to intense man- animal conflict since it is related to the survival of resident villagers. Severeness of this problem could be well understood if we look at the frequency table, i.e., Table 8.1. According to this table, on an average three to four persons out of one thousand households die in a year by animal attack. This number is quite significant considering present day’s progress in medical science and economic development.

Table 8.1. Loss of life and asset

Type Frequency of loss during 1990s in JWLS MWLS Life (number of persons per 0.03 0.04 household)

Asset (number of times per 0.29 0.42 household)

Wild elephants are to be blamed for almost all deaths mentioned in the above table. The respondents in MWLS reported only one case of leopard’s attack. This is to be noted here that some deaths mentioned in the table also occurred when villagers entered into the forest for collection of firewood and other forest produce, or while working as labourer in forest or tea gardens. The attack by the leopard falls under this head. Among the victims in Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary eighty percent were male and the rest were female. On the other hand, nearly eighty- four percent victims in Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary were male and sixteen percent were female. Thus male villagers were the main victims of wildlife attack.

Table 8.2. Monetary value of losses per household

Type Value (in rupees) of annual loss per household in JWLS MWLS Asset 829 788

# Life 60 80

# Assessed on the basis of compensation

The other side of the loss is the damage of properties of the villagers. It is observed from the Table 8.1 that on an average twenty-nine households in JWLS and forty-two households in MWLS out of one thousand households in villages of each sanctuary experienced damages of their huts in a year only because of wild animals. These numbers are sufficiently large to frighten local people about animals’ attack, and are also the reasons for man-animal conflict. This conflict could be mitigated if animals’ movement are restricted by some means like erection

of electrical fencing along forest boundaries. The State Government has also proposed such strategies in the management plans of the sanctuaries. At present villagers in-group resist animals’ attack on their habitats by bursting crackers, throwing burning-torches to animals, and by shouting. At the time of survey a significant number of male respondents admitted their participation in such group efforts of chasing animals. In this process the wild animals are also afflicted. However, number of such mishaps could not be obtained, as villagers are scare of reporting these encounters. The monetary value of the asset loss per household is presented in Table 8.2, which has been calculated on the basis of the data provided by the respondents. It is interesting to note that the extent of damage in JWLS was greater than that in MWLS, although the frequency of incidents of asset loss in MWLS was more than that frequency in JWLS. It shows the intensiveness of animals’ attack in Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary. In the second row of the table, attempts have been made to value the loss of life. This has been done with the help of the compensation rate that is generally being provided by the forest department in the case of death. (Details of the compensation rate will be discussed in Chapter-9.) To get the estimated value of life loss, amount of compensation for death has been multiplied by the frequency of incidents of death per household per year. The contribution of each type of loss in the total loss per household per annum due to wild animals is shown in figures 8.1-8.2. In both the sanctuaries, major source of loss due to wild animals was the damage of crops. It accounted for more than seventy-five per cent in JWLS, and nearly eighty-five per cent in MWLS. Loss of assets was not also negligible. It varied from

 Here frequency means the number of occurrence of the incident per household during last ten years.

fourteen to twenty-two per cent across the sanctuaries. In this regard, the least contribution was from loss of life. But from humanitarian ground it is an important component for policy- making, and it makes people hostile towards conservation effort, however small it accounts for. Actually, if appropriate valuation techniques were adopted, then its contribution would be much higher than the estimated one. We can get an idea of its actual value in Chapter 9 when we aim at discussing about the people’s demand for appropriate compensation.

life loss 2% asset loss 22%

crop loss 76%

Fig. 8.1. Percentage share of losses of different kinds in JWLS

life loss asset loss 1% 14%

crop loss 85%

Fig. 8.2. Percentage share of losses of different kinds in MWLS

CHAPTER 9

COMPENSATION AND PEOPLE’S DISSATISFACTION

Life of the people residing in forest and fringe villages of any wildlife sanctuary is different from that of distant inhabitants. People near sanctuaries have to struggle for their existence against wild animals. Their livelihood is under restrain due to the presence of some particular animals in the vicinity. So, they have reasons to be hostile towards functionaries responsible for management of sanctuaries. The government is, however, quite aware of these facts and tries to help the affected people by providing them with different kinds of assistance. The most important part of these assistances comprises of the payment of compensation for losses caused by wild animals, like loss of crops, loss of assets and loss of life due to attacks by wild animals. The official rates of such compensations are presented in Table 9.1.

Table 9.1 Official rate of compensation for different kinds of loss

Loss Rate of compensation

Life Rs.20000 per person killed, Rs.10000 per person against permanent disability plus treatment expense for injury in government hospital, Rs.5000 per person against loss of single limb and free medical treatment in government hospital and cost of treatment in government hospital for injury.

Crop To the ceiling of Rs.2500 per hectare

Asset Full damage: Rs.1000 Partial damage: Rs.500

Livestock Rs.70-Rs.450 subject to actual quantum of loss

Source: Wildlife Conservation in West Bengal: A Decade at a Glance, Wildlife Wing, Government of West Bengal, 1996, (annexure 9).

According to these official rates, an injured person will get at the most Rs.10000 as compensation along with free medical treatment. In case of death, family of the victim will receive Rs.20000. The maximum amount of money that the villagers will get for damage of crops by wild animals is Rs.2500 per hectare, i.e., about Rs.1000 per acre. But in reality, affected villagers generally obtain compensation at different rates. For example, the forest department generally pays compensation for damage of crops at a fixed rate due to the problem of exact valuation of the damage caused by wild animals. In the year of survey, every affected person among the respondents obtained,

irrespective of the size of the land and the extent of damage, a fixed amount of Rs.340 for loss of a single crop due to wild animals. But that rate of compensation was not sufficient to counterbalance their losses. So, dissatisfaction grew among the villagers. Their dissatisfaction becomes evident if we look at the actual picture regarding loss and compensation in the selected sanctuaries. Table 9.2 shows the actual compensation that was offered to the affected villagers for loss of crops. But this rate was too low for the residents against their damages. Moreover, compensation was not provided for all types of crops. Villagers received compensation for damage of paddy, wheat and corn only, and that too at a fixed rate. It is observed from this table that about ten per cent of the loss (including all crops) in JWLS, and about fifteen per cent of the loss (including all crops) in MWLS were only covered by compensation. Perhaps this was one of the reasons why farmers belonging to higher income group generally did not apply for compensation in spite of the damages of crops in their agricultural fields.

Table 9.2. Compensation received against loss of crops

Sanctuary Net value per acre Loss incurred Compensation (Rupees) per acre received per (Rupees) acre (Rupees) JWLS 2931.29 1102.85 112.38 (20.65) (29.09) (43.13) MWLS 3255.14 1631.70 239.05 (31.45) (64.54) (90.60) Note: Figures within bracket indicate coefficient of variation (= 100 * standard deviation / average). Net value (in column 2) = Total value - Input Cost – Loss. Net value (in column 2) and loss (in column 3) have been calculated considering all crops. To obtain the values in column 4, total compensation received by the household for paddy, wheat and corn, has been divided by the total area of the land, which was allocated by the household for cultivation of all crops

Another factor that irritated the local people was the delay in payment of compensation. It was reported by the respondents in Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary that the average time needed to release compensation for different crops was more than four months, whereas that was reported as more than ten months in case of Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary. Thus if time lag was taken into account, the worth of compensation at the harvest time would be lower than the amount they actually received after few months.║ All these discrepancies related to compensation are reflected in its high value of coefficient of variation. Coefficient

Compensation ║ The present worth = , where r is the discount rate and n is (1+r)n the time lag. Compensation means the actual compensation paid.

of variation of a variable actually shows the variability in values it possesses, and indicates the inconsistency inherent to it. The higher the value of coefficient of variation, the more inconsistent the variable is. So, according to the results in Table 9.2, it can be inferred that the compensation that was provided to them was more inconsistent in comparison with their reported loss, which again was more inconsistent in comparison with the net value of the agricultural crops per unit acre of the land. (Reasons for the inconsistency in their reported loss of crops will be explained in chapter 10.)

Table 9.3. Demand for compensation Sanctuary Kind of Actual Demand loss Average Average Average Average Amount Time Amount Time (Rupees) (Days) (Rupees) (Days) JWLS Crop 112 326 540 72 (per acre) (43.13) (23.52)

Asset 500 + 365 4000 77 (House) poles

Life 20000 30 59000 18

MWLS Crop 239 135 1000 52 (per acre) (90.60) (48.53)

Asset 500 + 150 8600 51 (House) poles

Life 20000 30 78000 25

Note: Figures within bracket indicate coefficient of variation (c.o.v.).

This inconsistency in compensation could be removed if people are paid more rationally to compensate their losses. In this regard, the respondents were asked about their demand for compensation against wildlife attacks on crop, asset and life during the survey. Table 9.3 depicts the survey results of the demand of the villagers for compensation against life loss, asset destruction and crop raiding. It is interesting to note that there was less variability in the amount of money they demanded for compensation, in comparison with the actual amount they received (observing the coefficient of variation in the case of crop only). Another interesting observation from survey results is that there remains anomaly between the loss, which they reported and the compensation, which they demanded for that loss. Even if the total compensation were calculated per household on the basis of their demand, it still remains below the total loss of crop, which they reported (see Table 9.4). Affected people generally exaggerate the loss, and the forest department is aware of this fact. Possibly, that is why the department pays them compensation at a fixed rate without evaluating the loss that the villagers claimed. Thus the compensation rate should be settled with a rational outlook. The rate should not be as low as the present rate (see figure 9.1). Again it should not be as high as the loss reported by the villagers. Here a cost-benefit analysis might give an indication in this direction (see chapter 10). Cost-benefit analysis, in this context, refers to the financial aspect of the appraisal of the interaction among the villagers, wild animals and their habitat. However, it is felt that a cost matrix approach might provide a better insight into this problem (see chapter 12).

Table 9.4. Anomaly between loss and demand for compensation

Crop type JWLS MWLS (In rupees) (In rupees) Loss Demand for Loss Demand for compensation compensation Paddy 1990 1048 2367 1380 Wheat 107 43 565 230 Corn 281 135 1069 880 Mustard 31 16 80 30 Jute 268 124 370 280 Vegetables 175 200 - - Mulberry - - 183 70 Total 2852 1566 4634 2870

Fig. 9.1. Inconsistency in compensation rate per acre for crop loss

CHAPTER 10

BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS

From our previous analysis and discussions it is clear that the extent of loss to the villagers in the surveyed sanctuaries was significant, even if their exaggeration of damage be underestimated and the official rate of compensation be taken into account as their loss. But the paradox lies in the fact that the villagers, despite such extent of damage, were not so much hostile towards wildlife as it was expected. They remained almost indifferent to wild animals. The reason is quite obvious if we look at the brighter side of the micro-economy in this area. It is the benefits accrued to them form the wildlife’s habitat - the forest.

Table 10.1. Yearly benefits derived per household from sanctuaries

Products Values in JWLS Values in MWLS (Rupees) (Rupees) Firewood (own consumption) 1457 1585 Firewood (sale) 438 788 Thatch grass 183 - * Others 270 347 Grazing 420 323 Total 2768 3043 * Others include kher, grass, small plants, etc.

Forests provide the local people with certain products and services needed in their day-to-day life. Products and services derived from the forests by the villagers in the area under survey are shown in Table 10.1. Firstly villagers collected firewood and other forest products like kher, grass, etc. free of cost. Here values of the firewood and other forest products and services have been estimated using their market price. It is observed from the table that MWLS gained higher benefit than MWLS in the year of survey, with respect to values of forest products and services. Over and above meeting their own demand, villagers in this area were found to earn from selling firewood in the local markets and sawmills. This activity contributed nearly twenty- six per cent of the total benefits in MWLS (see figure 10.2), and sixteen per cent in JWLS (see figure 10.1). The thatch grass, collected from the forest in JWLS, was also found to have demand in the local market. It contributed about seven per cent of the total benefits in Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary. Values of other products like kher, grass, etc. were not very insignificant too in both the sanctuaries. Now if all these benefits be added together, the total benefits derived per household per year from the sanctuary in both JWLS and MWLS are found to be more than Rs.2500, which are quite comparable with their average annual income, at least for the low-income groups.

Table 10.2. Benefit-cost analysis

Measures JWLS MWLS 1. Benefit (in rupees) 2768 3042 [Forest products and services derived per household] 2. Benefit (in rupees) 9570 17441 [Forest products and services derived per household + income from employment in forest department and tea gardens] 3. Cost (in rupees) 3741 5502 [Reported loss per household by animals’ attack] 4. Cost (in rupees) 2402 3939 [Loss calculated on the basis of villagers’ demand for compensation] 5. Cost (in rupees) 1768 1833 [Loss calculated on the basis of official rate of compensation] Scenario 1: Benefit-cost ratio [(1) ÷ (3)] 0.74 0.55 Assumption: Villagers’ statement about loss is believed. Scenario 2: Benefit-cost ratio [(1) ÷ (4)] 1.15 0.77 Assumption: Villagers’ demand for compensation is justified. Scenario 3: Benefit-cost ratio [(1) ÷ (5)] 1.57 1.66 Assumption: Villagers are totally disbelieved. Scenario 4: Benefit-cost ratio [(2) ÷ (3)] 2.56 3.17 Assumption: Villagers’ have no other employment opportunities and their statement about loss is believed.

Finally, despite restrictions on cattle grazing by law, villagers were found to derive this sort of benefits in the forest area. Value of this benefit has been calculated by the value of the fodder saved through cattle grazing. This benefit was higher in JWLS in both absolute and relative terms. Considering all these benefits, the benefit-cost ratio has been computed and presented in Table 10.2. It was about 0.74 in Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary, and 0.55 in Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (scenario 1). While calculating the cost, all kinds of losses have been included. It is a serious crisis in both the sanctuaries, since there total costs exceeded total benefits. However, even if we consider the apparent loss, which was reflected through their demand for compensation, the benefit- cost ratio does not improve and remain less than one in MWLS (scenario 2). It would be greater than one only if total costs were calculated on the basis of official rates of compensation (scenario 3). These undesirable phenomena (in scenarios 1 and 2) can be explained in many ways. Firstly, respondents understated their benefits derived from forests. Secondly, they overstated the loss incurred by the wild animals. Thirdly, they had no other alternatives than to stay near the sanctuaries, in spite of the costs exceeding the benefits. Generally, people in these localities assumed their income from agriculture or other occupations as benefits of staying there because they had no other places to migrate. Thus respondents’ income from employment in forest department and tea gardens has been included in the total benefits in item 2 of Table 10.2. The benefit-cost ratio has been calculated on the basis of these benefits in item 2 and costs in item 3 (scenario 4). In both the sanctuaries this ratio exceeds 2.50. This high value of benefit- cost ratio fairly justifies people’s tolerance to wild animals. But the entire situation cannot merely be explained by the cost-benefit analysis. We need to know more from the

respondents to realize their attitudes to wild animals. Chapter 11 has been devoted to such an attempt. There we have tried to identify those people who were in favour of wildlife conservation, and to develop techniques for capturing their revealed preference for the same purpose.

Fig. 10.1. Benefits from forests in JWLS

Fig. 10.2. Benefits from forests in MWLS

CHAPTER 11

PEOPLE’S PREFERENCE FOR WILDLIFE CONSERVATION

Verification of the hypothesis that any wildlife-related benefit- cost relation directly influences man-animal interaction was our proposition at the beginning of this study. The initial task of such a systematic study needs evaluation and comparison of wildlife- related benefits and costs. Then it requires the identification and determination of indicators of man-animal interaction. Finally, it demands a model (or models) to relate the indicators of man- animal interaction and measures of benefit-cost relation. What has been carried out so far is the evaluation and comparison of benefits and costs, i.e., the first part of the study. Now it is required to identify and to determine indicators of interaction. One such indicator in wildlife-related studies is the participation rate of local people in physical conflict with wild animals. In the present study, such a conflict has been captured through the respondents’ participation in chasing wild animals from their neighbourhood. By chasing operations we do not mean only aggressive chasing of wild elephants, but also intolerance to the presence of any animals like python etc. in their vicinity and helping forest employees in taking of those animals to other places. It was observed in Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary that about five per cent of the respondents on an average participated in such operations. However, this rate was about nine per cent in Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary.

Here it is noteworthy that these rates of participation have meaningful relations with the animal-induced costs of damage and accrued benefits from forests. Relations among these three variables have been estimated here for the respondents using linear regression models.▌ These are

Participation rate = 0.0016 * Damage – 0.0081 * Benefit (2.431) (-1.132) for the respondents in Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary, and

Participation rate = 0.0022 * Damage – 0.0012 * Benefit (4.855) (1.336) for the respondents in Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary. Goodness of fit (i.e., R2) of the former regression model is 0.589 and for the later model it is 0.874. The t-values in parenthesis of both models show that the damage cost is the most significant variable in determining the above relations. But benefit is not so much significant in comparison with damage. Thus the dominating factor for the occurrence of man-animal conflict with respect to chasing operations in the selected sanctuaries was the animal-induced damage. Benefits have some role, though not very significant, in reducing the above conflict. The other indicator of man-animal interaction that we have chosen for the present study is people’s willingness to pay (WTP) for wildlife conservation. It reflects people’s preference

▌ A linear regression model or the line of regression is a straight line, which gives the best estimate to the value of one variable for specific values of other variables. Thus the linear regression model is the line of best fit and is obtained by the principles of least squares.

for wildlife through their valuation of wild animals.＊ In the surveyed villages, both the respondents’ willingness to pay a fixed amount as the closed-ended referendum, and the maximum amount that they were willing to contribute voluntarily in open- ended question was recorded. Seventy-seven per cent in JWLS, and forty-four per cent in MWLS of the surveyed households responded positively in closed-ended referendum (see Table 11.1). On the other hand, in open-ended question, respondents were willing to contribute voluntarily on an average Rs.15.33 per annum in JWLS, and Rs.16.19 per annum in MWLS.

Table 11.1. WTP for wildlife conservation

Sanctuary Average WTP in percentage Average WTP in rupees of respondents (Open-ended question) (Closed-ended referendum) JWLS 76.99 15.33 MWLS 44.19 16.19

Generally people, whenever pay or are willing to pay for something, must have some arguments behind it. Likewise people in the area under study had some arguments behind their willingness to pay for the conservation of the wildlife and its habitat. Their arguments were noted and categorised in Table 11.2. Each entry in this table shows the percentage of respondents in each sanctuary saying “yes” to the respective arguments. These arguments are specially based on different notions of the respondents with respect to wildlife’s value to them as discussed in Chapter 4.

＊A brief introduction to this topic has been discussed in Chapter 4.

Table 11.2. Percentage of respondents in favour of arguments for WTP

Arguments No. JWLS MWLS

Right to live F1 11.68 17.70

Biodiversity will be maintained F2 35.32 49.83

Protect wildlife for future generation F3 20.40 10.20

Price of forest product will remain low, and F4 97.28 95.00 easy availability of fire wood

Grazing F5 60.63 56.50

Religious belief F6 0.67 3.20

We are proud to reside near the sanctuary F7 8.20 1.00

Scope of employment will be more F8 45.13 37.50

National property F9 7.19 4.70

Aesthetic value F10 2.00 7.20

Wild animals protect forest F11 0.00 9.17

It is interesting to observe that most of the respondents in two selected sanctuaries were in favour of the argument F4, i.e., price of forest product will remain low and easy availability of fuel wood. The next important argument in favour of wildlife

conservation was F5, i.e., grazing. The response in favour of the argument F8, i.e., scope of employment will be more was more or less significant in all the villages. This argument registered rank 3 in the case of JWLS, and rank 4 in the case of MWLS. The response in favour of the ecological concern F2, i.e., bio-diversity will be maintained was found to dominate more in MWLS than in JWLS. It scored rank 3 in the case of MWLS, and rank 4 in the case of JWLS. Other non-economic arguments like F1 and F3, i.e., right to live and protect wildlife for future generation had moderate importance to the respondents. The argument religious belief, i.e., F6 had attracted poor response in both the sanctuaries. Only a few respondents argued that wild animals like elephant should be preserved, as they were found to be the symbol of God. Argument F7, i.e., we are proud to reside near the sanctuary was not so significant in the surveyed areas, especially in MWLS. Few respondents in these sanctuaries only responded positively in favour of arguments F9 and F10, i.e., national property and aesthetic value respectively. No respondent in JWLS was in favour of the argument F11, i.e., wild animals protect forest. (F11 indicates that the presence of wild animals like tiger, elephant, etc. does not make access to the forest easier for the collection of forest products as the animals may attack the collectors any time. This threat from the wild animals thus indirectly reduces the degradation of forest.) However, the argument F11 was one of the arguments of some respondents in MWLS for their WTP. Thus it is observed from the above discussion that arguments on economic aspects dominated other arguments based on non- economic factors. However, villagers were not unaware of the facts like “bio-diversity will be maintained”, “right to live”, “aesthetic value”, “national property”, etc. In some surveyed villages, percentage of respondents in favour of these non- economic arguments was found to be very high. Possibly the

recent forest policy had some influence on the villagers in this regard. National Forest Policy of 1988 stressed on management of the forest as a national asset that is to be protected and enhanced for the well being of the people and nation. It also stressed on active involvement of all fringe population in the management and development of forest resource. As a result the government launched a centrally sponsored scheme called Eco-Development around National Parks and Sanctuaries in the Eighth Plan, with a provision of 102 million rupees. Eco-development was defined as a site-specific package of measures developed through people’s participation with the objective of promoting sustainable use of land and other resources as well as on-farm and off-farm income generating activities, which would not be deleterious to protected area values.♣ The primary objective of the committee was to promote conservation and also was meant for better lives of local people and more satisfying occupation for foresters at all levels. Eco-Development Committee (EDC) has been formed to provide alternative employment opportunity options to villagers, thereby diverting them away from dependence on natural eco- systems. There has been a zoning strategy: core zone, surrounded by buffer zone (multiple-use surrounds) in which human habitation has been allowed to continue. Typical eco- development inputs include employment opportunities (like dairy, horticulture, handicrafts), energy saving devices such as more efficient wood stoves, and market linkages such as roads and transportation. Other objectives of EDC have been involvement of village communities to ensure protection and preservation of bio-diversity and eco-system, promotion of

♣ Management plan of JWLS, Chapter 7, 1997

conservation awareness values to reduce man-animal conflict, and improvement of sanctuary-people interface. In this respect an investigation about the impact of EDC membership on people’s attitudes towards wildlife is required. It was observed during the survey that about fifteen per cent of the respondents per village in JWLS had membership in Eco- Development Committee, and about twenty-nine per cent of the respondents per village were members of EDC in MWLS. But the membership rate was not uniform in all the villages. In some villages this activity was totally absent, whereas in some villages a large section of the respondents were found to be the members of EDC. The coefficients of variation of the EDC membership rates in JWLS and MWLS were 132 and 83 respectively, which are sufficiently high. The impact of eco-development programme has been examined by computing the correlation coefficient between EDC membership and WTP (in closed-ended referendum).# A weak positive correlation has been observed between these two variables. It is merely 0.06 in JWLS, and 0.22 in MWLS. When WTP (in open ended question) has been considered, then also the value of the correlation coefficient did not improve. However, EDC membership and villagers’ participation in animals chasing operations are more meaningfully correlated than the above two cases. In MWLS, the correlation coefficient between these two

# The correlation coefficient serves as a measure of the linear relationship between two variables. Now, if with the increase in the value of one variable the value of the other variable is found to increase, then the two variables are said to be positively correlated (maximum value being 1). If, on the other hand, with the increase in the value of one variable the other variable decreases, then they are said to be negatively correlated (minimum value being –1). Again, if with the increase in the value of one variable the value of the other variable remains constant on the average, then it is said to be a case of zero correlation.

variables is about -0.35. It means eco-development progammes have persuaded villagers to be more tolerant to wild animals.

Table 11.3. Conditional WTP for conservation of wildlife

Conditions Percentage Percentage of willing of willing respondents respondents in JWLS in MWLS All animals 49 54 All animals except elephants 51 44 All animals except elephants and boar - 2

Another interesting point in this study is the villagers’ conditional WTP for wildlife conservation. If we look at the Table 11.3 we see that only about fifty per cent of the willing respondents in both the sanctuaries desired to pay unconditionally, i.e., their WTP was aimed at preservation of all kinds of wild animals. But rest of them was not willing to pay for preservation of all animals. For example, some of them were willing to pay for preservation of animals except wild elephant, and a few respondents in MWLS desired to exclude both wild elephants and wild boar from the conservation programme. Of course, it is another indicator of man-animal conflict, and it proves people’s annoyance against these specific animals. Now we come to the conclusion with some important results (see Table 11.4). These results show how people’s socio- economic background dictates their preference for wildlife. Here, preference has been revealed by their willingness to pay

for wildlife conservation in closed-ended referendum. The results are based on the following logistic regression model:

WTP = β1 * family income + β2 * educational level + β3 * age + β4 * EDC membership + β5 * life loss + β6 * other loss + β7 * forest products and services + β8 * employment

The model has been tested for both male and female on the basis of survey data. In the above model educational level possesses the value 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 accordingly as the respondent is illiterate, literate, educated up to class ten, secondary examination, higher secondary examination, graduate and post graduate. EDC membership is equal to 1 if the respondent is a member of EDC, and 0 if not. Life loss is the cost associated with the loss of life in the family of the respondent (refer to chapter 8). Other loss includes damage costs of crop and asset. Forest products and services are the benefits accrued to the family of the respondent from uses and sale of forest products, and cattle grazing. Employment means the income generated from employment in forest and tea gardens.

 In a logistic regression model, the probability of a dichotomous outcome variable is predicted from a set of independent variables. Actually, the form of the model is Pr(event) = 1/[1+ exp{−(β1 X 1 + β 2 X 2 +...... + β k X k )}] , where Xis are family income, educational level, etc. An event means WTP to be 1 or 0 in closed-ended referendum.

Table 11.4. Logistic regression model of WTP on socio-economic variables

Dependent Parameter associated with explanatory variables Goodness of variable Family Educatio Age EDC Life loss Other Forest Employ- fit income nal level member- losses products ment (Nagel- ship and kerke R2) services WTP for male in 0.000035 0.0201 0.0077 0.2743 -2.0062 -0.5168 0.8065 -0.7181 0.42 JWLS (0.132) (0.939) (0.689) (0.728) (0.277) (0.433) (0.334) (0.334) WTP for female in 0.000054 0.4580 0.0308 14.7768 -8.1956 0.3109 -2.1872 9.7642 0.50 JWLS (0.175) (0.385) (0.358) (0.862) (0.892) (0.762) (0.218) (0.904) WTP for male in 0.000003 0.3821 0.0053 0.0312 -5.5347 -0.3716 -0.6620 -0.5729 0.25 MWLS (0.751) (0.105) (0.735) (0.812) (0.724) (0.374) (0.463) (0.155) WTP for female in 0.000021 0.6875 0.0107 0.0996 -1.1541 0.2825 -0.5992 -1.0552 0.35 MWLS (0.208) (0.489) (0.972) (0.966) (0.371) (0.638) (0.309) (0.323) Note: WTP is in dichotomous choice, i.e., WTP is equal to 1 if the respondent agrees to pay for wildlife conservation, and otherwise it is equal to 0. Figures in parenthesis indicate significance levels.

Results of the model are summerised in figure 11.1. In the figure + sign indicates positive impact, and – sign indicates negative impact. The results can be interpreted as follows:  Family income has a positive impact on individual’s preference for wildlife, i.e. higher income people are more willing to pay for wildlife conservation.  An individual is inclined further to wildlife conservation with higher educational level.  With increasing age an individual becomes more inclined towards coexistence with wild animals. This feeling is found to be stronger among female respondents than among male respondents. This gender specific response is found to be true for educational level also.  EDC membership has a positive effect on WTP. Also in this case women are more inclined towards wildlife conservation.  As is obvious, life loss has a negative impact on an individual’s preference for wildlife conservation.  Other losses influence people negatively with respect to wildlife conservation. However, in the case of females this impact was found to be positive. A possible explanation of this finding may be that, in spite of losses other than life, women remain almost indifferent to wild animals out of sympathy.  It is supposed that benefits would influence people’s attitude to wild animals positively. But in some cases, the impact is found to be negative. For example, men having benefits from employment in forests and tea gardens do not prefer conservation of wild animals because of the occupational hazards associated with these types of jobs due to the presence of wild animals. They are afraid of being attacked by fierce wild animals in forests and tea gardens during their duty hours. This is also true for villagers who often enter into the forest for firewood collection. Thus benefits from collection of forest products have a negative impact on WTP, except for males in JWLS.

It has thus become possible to describe people’s attitude towards wild animals profoundly on the basis of economic and non-economic factors. Generally, their awareness about wildlife conservation strengthens with increasing income and educational level. Elder people have been observed to be more sympathetic to wild animals. Moreover, it can be seen that their participation in eco-development programmes had made them more concerned about ecological crisis. However, no such direct relation can be established regarding loss and benefit, although in most of the cases these variables are more significant than other variables in explaining WTP (see Table 11.4). According to the results of the model, loss in general led people to behave against wildlife. But surprisingly benefit had also a negative impact on people’s behaviour except in few cases. This happened out of their fear that benefits from the forest may decrease if wild animals are conserved. This presumption of decreased benefits increases with increasing benefits. Naturally they decline to WTP for conservation of wildlife. Therefore, a relevant strategy in this regard is to be framed keeping all these aspects in mind. Such an exercise has been worked out in Chapter 12.

 The higher value of significance level in the table indicates that the variable is less significant.

INCOME +

+ EDUCATION

AGE +

+ EDC MEMBERSHIP

WILLINGNESS TO _ PAY FOR WILDLIFE LIFE LOSS CONSERVATION

OTHER LOSSES −/+

FOREST PRODUCTS AND SERVICES +/−

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES +/−

Fig. 11.1. Effect of socio-economic factors on WTP

CHAPTER 12

CONSERVATION FROM SOCIO- ECONOMIC POINT OF VIEW

The concluding chapter is aimed at providing a framework within which a wildlife conservation strategy may be formulated. Generally, a number of groups (of people) are affected when conservation measures are put into action. Some groups are positively affected (i.e., lose), and some groups are affected negatively (i.e., gain). So, while framing a strategy all these groups should be taken into consideration, and the resulting impact on the affected groups should be examined (taking the help of a cost matrix). For the present problem, the prime group directly affected by the wildlife conservation, comprises of the people living in the neighbouring areas of a sanctuary. It is apparent from the previous analysis that agriculture is the mostly affected economic activity in the neighbouring areas of the surveyed sanctuaries. The expected agricultural loss per year on account of wild animals’ attack only, in 3 forest villages and 32 fringe villages of Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary altogether, could be estimated to be around 16.94 million rupees.♣ The

♣ The estimation is based on the average frequency of damage during the last ten years (Table 7.1), total cultivable area in 32 fringe villages, and the damage of crops per acre (Table 9.2). The total area of the forest and fringe villages is 15782.94 hectares. It has been assumed that 95% of the total area is cultivable land. Again, if the expected loss were estimated on the basis of the number of households, damage per

expected loss of asset is also significant in this locality. It is about 3.61 million rupees per year.♦ Thus the expected total loss in all the forest and fringe villages of JWLS alone is nearly 20.58 million rupees per year (including the loss of life). It is to be mentioned here that the estimation of the expected loss is upwardly biased since all the calculations are based on the damage as reported by the surveyed households. If the expected loss were estimated on the basis of the official rates of compensation, then it would be nearly half of the above estimated value. The expected loss would be further reduced, if the distance-wise weighted average of the frequency of incidents of animal attack be taken into account in the process of estimation, since the frequency of incidents of animal attack in a village varies more or less inversely with its distance from the forest. People in the surveyed area, on the other hand, derive a significant amount of benefits from the habitat of the wild animals. A conservative measure of benefits per year shows that the total demand for forest products and services is more than 20 million rupees per year in and around Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary.� Therefore, the benefits from the forest, assuming that the total demand was met without being barred from illegal felling or unauthorized grazing, fairly surpass the loss done by wild animals. But in reality the expected benefit might be lower

household (Table 7.4), and the frequency of damage, then it would be around 17.56 million rupees. ♦ It is estimated on the basis of asset loss per household (Table 8.2), number of households, and the frequency of asset loss (Table 8.1). � Only the own consumption of fuel wood has been considered for the estimation of benefits. Other benefits such as sale of fuel wood, grazing, etc. has been ignored for the calculation of total benefits in the selected area as these are accrued only within the forest and fringe villages very close to the sanctuary.

than the estimated value.# There are chances of having interaction with forest guards, firewood could be seized, and cases might be instituted in court. The Offence Report of the Forest Department gives an indication about the possibility of being identified and penalized for illegal operation in the sanctuary (see Table 12.1). The report shows that even compensation was realized for offences like illegal felling or unauthorized grazing, performed in the forest area.

Table 12.1. Penalty for committing offences in Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary

Offence/Penalty Yearly average

A. Offence identified 1) Number of illegal felling 410 2) Number of unauthorized grazing 90 3) Number of other offence 26

B. Penalty for committing offence 1) Number of persons arrested for illegal 81 felling, unauthorized grazing, and other offence 2) Number of convictions in Court 5 3) Amount of compensation realized 40649 (rupees) 4) Value of wood (timber, pole and 1278122 firewood confiscated (rupees)

C. Number of Assault on forest employees 1

Source: Management Plan of Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary

Thus, with the strengthening of the legal enforcement, the chances of losing benefits might increase, and in turn expected

# The expected benefit = (the computed total benefit) x {1 – (the probability of being penalized for taking away the forest products)}

benefit must be lowered. In that case, the man-animal conflict (actually the conflict between villagers and the institution responsible for wildlife management) would exacerbate, unless a comprehensive management plan is adopted for better management of the wildlife and mitigation of man-animal conflict. Here the management plan implies selection of the best strategy with respect to some criteria among possible alternatives, and it is comprehensive in the sense that it would take into account all possible outcomes of any action. The alternative strategies that have been considered in the following analysis are (1) exclusionist approach, (2) non-exclusionist approach without people’s participation in the wildlife management, and (3) participatory approach (see Chapter 3).

Table 12.2. Average budgetary allocation per year (in million rupees)

Item Expenditure

1. Consolidation, infrastructure development, 4.19 protection, and communication 2. Habitat improvement 2.50 3. Reduction of man-animal conflict 1.60 4. Reduction of grazing pressure 0.38 5. Veterinary care for wild animals, 0.30 departmental elephants and fringe area cattle 6. Training, monitoring and research 1.10 7. Eco-tourism, publicity and awareness 0.50 generation 8. Captive breeding and reintroduction 0.10 programme 9. Eco-development activities 16.00 Total 26.67 Source: Management Plan of Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary

The outcome of three alternative strategies in Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary and the resulting costs to the system are presented in Table 12.6. The system includes villagers, other stakeholders, the forest management authority, and the wildlife itself. The other stakeholders in this analysis consist of the people associated with tourism and allied activities. In order to derive the benefits from the habitat, villagers generally cause damage to the wildlife (both flora and fauna). If it were assumed that the cost of this damage is directly proportional to the value of the derived benefit, then wildlife preservation simply means exclusion of the people from the forest (strategy 1 in Table 12.6). For this exclusionist strategy, villagers will experience a high cost (40.58 million rupees) consisting of the loss of benefits that were accrued from the forest (20 million rupees), and the damage cost (20.58 million rupees) borne by them due to wild animals’ invasion. An exclusionist approach will also generate an additional cost to the wildlife management authority. For example, more assault on forest employees are expected to occur for prohibiting entry of the villagers into the forest, in spite of spending money to reduce man-animal conflict (see last row of Table 12.1). So, the total cost to the management authority is likely to exceed the previously planned budgetary allocation. If we assume the previously planned budgetary allocation to be 26.67 million rupees (see Table 12.2), then the current cost to the forest authority under the exclusionist strategy will be greater than this amount. The expected higher cost to the authority has been expressed as ‘>26.67’ (meaning higher than 26.67 million rupees) in the relevant column of the first row of the Table 12.6. Again, exclusion of the villagers from the wildlife habitat will make them unkind to wild animals. It is expected that under this strategy villagers would be directly or indirectly involved in killing or poaching of wild animals (see Table 12.3). Hence cost

to the wildlife must not be zero, rather it will be ‘>0’. On the contrary, it is expected that the wildlife related tourism would not suffer as a consequence of this strategy since exclusionist strategy is aimed at preserving wildlife. So, the cost to them, evolving out of this strategy, would be zero. The resulting cost to the whole system is shown in the last column of the table as ‘>67.25’ (sum of the costs to the villagers, the wildlife management authorities, wildlife itself, and the other stakeholders) indicating higher than the sum of the costs originally envisaged.

Table 12.3. Killings of wild animals per year (1983-94)

Name of animals Causes of death Number

Rhino Mainly poachers 0.92 Leopard Poachers 0.08 Spotted deer Hunters 0.08 Wild boar Villagers 0.08 Source: Management Plan of Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary

The second alternative strategy that has been considered in this analysis is the non-exclusionist approach where villagers are not assumed to participate in the preservation of wild animals. The outcome of this strategy in Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary and the resulting costs to the system are presented in the second row of the table. The resulting cost to the system under this strategy will obviously be lower than that of strategy-1, since the villagers would not experience the loss of benefits due to prohibition any more, although damage cost still would prevail (which is about 20.58 million rupees). The government expenditure would also be slashed, as budgetary items to reduce grazing pressure, eco-development, etc. would no more be

required (excluding these items the budgetary allocations in Table 12.2 stands at 6.92 million rupees per year). But such a strategy will result in severe degradation of wildlife, and in the long run the present eco-system might be wiped out. Under the strategy-3 in Table 12.6, this cost has been shown to be greater than the present damage cost to wildlife. (The present damage cost to wildlife has previously been assumed to be directly proportional to the benefits accrued from the habitat, i.e., 20 million rupees.) Under these circumstances, the first victims would be the other stakeholders who now earn their livelihood from eco-tourism or allied activities (so, cost to them would be greater than zero). But finally the whole community would suffer. Therefore, the total cost to the system, though less in the short run, might go beyond the higher cost of the previous strategy in the long run.

Table 12.4. Economic and non-economic arguments behind WTP

Arguments JWLS MWLS Male Female Male Female Economic arguments Forest products and services 98.9 94.1 96.8 95.7 Grazing 64.5 52.9 53.2 61.4 Employment 49.5 35.3 37.3 34.3 Non-economic arguments Protection for future generation 20.4 21.6 7.9 11.4 Religious belief 0.0 1.9 0.8 1.4 National property 5.9 7.5 3.2 7.1 Aesthetic value 0.0 2.2 4.8 10.0 Biodiversity 36.6 33.3 42.1 42.9 Source: Field survey

The third strategy is a modified version of the second one. Here villagers’ participation in management of the wildlife has been assumed along with the non-exclusionist approach of strategy-2. The outcome of this strategy can be foreseen in the light of the people’s behaviour in the context of wildlife conservation. It has been observed during the field survey that the respondents in both the sanctuaries (whose WTP for the conservation of wildlife were non-zero) generally gave more priority to economic factors than non-economic factors (see Table 12.4). Again, among the economic factors, they emphasized more on availability of forest products and services. Employment got the least priority in this category. Now, one of the objectives of the participatory approach is the development of eco-tourism (see Table 12.2). So, it may be assumed that with the development of eco-tourism, more people could be employed. This would in turn motivate a comparatively larger section of the villagers to conserve wildlife for the sake of their employment opportunities. Again, economic upliftment of the villagers due to the development of eco-tourism would change their lifestyle, and perhaps their dependence on forest products.♠ Thus after implementing strategy-3, it may so happen that people still would favour economic factors, but surely they would give more priority to employment opportunities than the forest products. As a result, the loss of benefits, i.e., indirectly the degradation of wildlife would be minimised. It has been represented as ‘<20’ meaning less than 20 million rupees which is the present damage cost to the wildlife. Next, what will happen to the damage cost to the villagers under this strategy? Apparently this cost should remain the same

♠ It has been experienced that introduction of LPG and development of biogas as a cooking fuel in fringe villages of forests in Bankura district in West Bengal reduced dependency on firewood.

as in other strategies, and might increase due to the increasing population of wild animals (because of wildlife preservation). But logically it ought to reduce. What is damage in exclusionist approach might not always be felt as damage in participatory approach; because the damage would be compensated by the benefits accrued through income earnings from eco-tourism and allied activities. In that case the real damage cost to the villagers will hopefully decrease.⊗ It has been indicated with a “<” sign in the third row of the Table 12.6.

Table 12.5. Number of tourists and revenue earned from Youth Hostel, and Hollong and Barodabari Tourist Lodges

Year Number of visitors Revenue earned Visitors Day Total (in thousand stayed at visitors visitors rupees) Lodges 1990 2635 4197 6832 265 1991 2648 3734 6382 257 1992 2843 8626 11469 364 1993 2919 3681 6600 342 1994 2645 7670 10315 454 Source: Management Plan of Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary

To explore this further, let us review the number of tourists who had visited the sanctuary during 1990 to 1994. In the Table 12.5, revenue earned per person (if calculated) is found to be very significant, although it does not include the entry fee to the sanctuary. Moreover, if the travel costs were included with it, then it surely would give some indications of the high value of

⊗ Real damage cost can simply be viewed as a function, which is the difference between the actual damage and the sum of the discounted flow of benefits. But in reality the function might be more complicated and consisting of variables other than these two.

wildlife to the tourists. Thus the number of visitors and per capita revenue earned during the said period reveal that eco- tourism has a huge potential to generate employment in Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary. But it needs more spending on infrastructure development, advertisement, and awareness programmes. In this regard, the government might not be able to perform the total job alone. So, they should encourage private entrepreneur to invest in such programmes. If everything goes accordingly, then with greater infrastructure facilities, more tourists would be attracted to the sanctuary, and more revenue would be earned. Thus the affected local people (i.e., villagers) would be compensated ultimately by another group of people (i.e., tourists) to whom wildlife has non-economic values only. Therefore, the participatory strategy, if not exaggerated, would surely improve the situation than the other two strategies. People of the forest and fringe villages would become more aware of the need to preserve wildlife (may be for the economic reasons). As a consequence, wildlife is likely to be preserved, along with economic betterment of the villagers, and the reduction of the overall cost to the system.

Table 12.6. Outcome and pay-off summary for Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary Strategy Outcome Cost (million rupees) Villagers Wildlife Wildlife Other Total manage- stake- ment holders authorities 1. Exclusionist approach Villagers will be deprived of benefits, and 40.58 >26.67 >0.00 0.00 >67.25 suffer from wild animals invasion. More assault on forest employees will occur. Villagers will directly or indirectly participate in killing or poaching of wild animals. 2. Non-exclusionist Villagers will derive benefits leading to 20.58 6.92 >20.00 >0.00 >47.50 approach without degradation of wildlife. Villagers will still villagers’ participation suffer from wild animals invasion. Grievances against forest authority would be reduced. Tourism will suffer. 3. Participatory approach Villagers will not intend to derive benefits <20.58 26.67 <20.00 0.00 <67.25 from the forest. Wildlife will be less degraded. Villagers will suffer less from wild animals invasion. Grievances against forest authority would be reduced. Tourism will boost up. Note. “>” Sign indicates “more than”. “<” Sign indicates “less than”.

Epilogue

The nature always strives for greater diversity, and such diversity of animal species within it ensures its stability. Any alteration in one species affects all the other species, and thus disturbs the stability of the ecosystem. So, one of the most important agendas of today’s ecological crisis is conservation of wild animals, as many of them occupy a significant position in the functioning of natural ecosystems. But as a matter of fact the world’s primary areas of species diversity are in developing countries. Conservation of biodiversity becomes complicated in these countries because of high population pressures on habitats. People, who are struggling to get enough resources to achieve some degree of economic prosperity in these countries, generally feel that biological diversity is not particularly relevant to them. Although efforts are now being made vigorously to protect the areas of high biological value in these countries. India is an example in this context. Many of its unique fauna are faced with a threat of their survival even though the country has a long history of conservation effort. Some of the conservation efforts, which have been made so far in India, are establishment of national parks and sanctuaries, legislation, special projects for conservation of endangered animals, institutional support and conservation education. In spite of these measures – legal, environmental and socio-economic – man- animal conflict is almost a regular phenomenon in and around most of the protected areas, and this very conflict is becoming a hindrance to wildlife conservation. From one side, the source of this man-animal conflict is the restriction on the local people to access forest resources. The restriction imposed on wildlife habitats for the purpose of preservation indirectly affects the benefits accrued to them from staying near habitats. On the other side, the source of conflict is the damage incurred to them by wild animals. Law protects wild animals and they increase in number consequently. The outcome is the direct suffering of the local people from incidents of break-in of growing animal population in search of food, space and mates, causing loss in crops, lifting of cattle, human deaths and so on. The government is, however, quite aware of these facts and tries to help the affected people by providing them with different kinds of assistance. The most important part of these assistances comprises of the payment of compensation for losses caused by wild animals, like loss of crops, loss of assets and loss of life due to attacks by wild animals. There also exist some official rates of such compensations. But the actual compensations that are offered to the affected people are generally too low compared to their actual damages, and along with it there remains question of delayed payments. So, people in and around any protected area are not very happy with the consequences of the impact of man-animal interaction. Cost- benefit analysis shows results in favour of their dissatisfaction as well. Even if the actual compensations are deducted from the cost part, the benefit-cost ratio does not improve much. However, the situation changes dramatically when employment opportunities of the local people are taken into consideration. Therefore, one of the alternative planning strategies for the mitigation of man-animal conflict in and around a protected area might be the development of eco-tourism, which is already in progress in some parts of the country. Yet there remains ample scope to develop it further. But it needs more spending on infrastructure development, advertisement, and awareness programmes. In this regard, the government might not be able to take the financial and administrative responsibility alone. So, they should encourage private entrepreneur to invest in such programmes. If such investments are given shape, greater infrastructure facilities could be generated. This would attract more tourists and would generate more revenues. Thus, ultimately, the affected local people would be compensated through employment generation yielding better benefit-cost relation. Regarding animal-induced damage, however, some immediate measures are to be taken in all the protected areas in spite of the proposed employment generation through eco- tourism. Conservation has already resulted in increasing wild animals’ population and spill over effect. So, optimum population of wildlife with respect to each habitat’s size and resource availability has to be determined. This level of optimum population should be maintained as far as possible by proper monitoring. Moreover, animals’ mobility has to be restricted by building barriers (viz., erection of electric fencing, etc.) along the sanctuaries’ borderline with the human habitation. Finally, an appropriate conservation strategy has to be settled on so that the local people get involved in it. In this regard an exclusionist approach to wildlife conservation is not an appropriate one as it generally intensifies the man-animal conflict. This conservation approach seeks to exclude resident people from within protected areas, restrict local human access to them, and prohibit customary use rights. Participatory approach, on the other hand, helps to accomplish efficient management of wildlife, as local people get involved in it. In this context, enlightening the behaviour of the local people on the basis of non-economic criteria is exceptionally fruitful in deciding a course of action for wildlife conservation through participatory approach. People’s behaviour in the context of wildlife conservation has been observed to be gender specific, age specific, education specific and income specific. However, education (next to income) among these socio-economic factors has been found to be a strong determinant of people’s attitude towards wildlife conservation, of course, with a different degree of variation for men and women. Educational level of the women is stronger determinant of the preference pattern for wildlife conservation than that of man. So, their participation should be encouraged further in wildlife conservation programme. The above list of recommendations from socio-economic point of view could be continued, but what has been said so far allows us to draw conclusions sufficiently about the complex and multifaceted character of the problem – the problem of rationalizing the interaction between man and animal. To resolve this problem we have to employ the elements of all rational trends in ecological and socio-economic approach. At the same time it must be remembered that not a single of them should be made absolute as a universal panacea for dealing with man- animal interaction problems.

View publication stats