AResearch Proposal

On

Human Wildlife conflict: A case study from Lalitpur district

A partial fulfillment of the requirement for B.Sc forestrydegree, Institute Of Forestry/TU, Pokhara

Research InvestigatorGanesh SedhainB.Sc. Final yearIoF, Pokhara

Research Advisor

IOF, Pokhara

Submitted to

Signature

Introduction

Human- Wildlife Conflict is defined as any interaction

between humans and wildlife that results in negative

impacts social, economic or cultural life, on the

conservation of wildlife populations, or on the environment

(WWF (2005). It affects both wild animal and human being and

also in economy. People lose their crops, livestock,

property and sometimes their lives. Animals, which are

already endangered or threatened, are often killed by the

people (Bhatta 2003).

Human-wildlife conflicts are a global problem, and are

occurring in many countries where human and wildlife

requirements overlap (Deodatus 2000, Dickman 2010, Hoffman

and O'Riain 2012). Conflicts between people and wildlife are

encountered by a diverse group of communities, particularly

those residing close to protected areas containing large

2

herbivores and large carnivores (Newmark et al. 1994, Hemson

et al. 2009). Human-wildlife conflicts are contentious

because the resources concerned have a considerable economic

value for local residents, while wildlife species have both

national and international value, and are legally protected

(Mayaka 2002). Human-wildlife conflicts can take various

forms, including carnivores attacking and killing livestock

or humans, species raiding crops, competition for game

and/or resources, disease exchange between livestock and

wildlife, carcass poisoning, and retaliation killing

(Thirgood et al. 2005, Madden 2008). The conflict involves a

variety of mammals, birds, fish, insects, and reptiles

(Manfredo and Dayer 2004).

Human-wildlife conflicts have escalated because of changes

in land use, arable farming, and the sedentary lifestyle of

pastoralists; inadequate wildlife control; and bans on

hunting of some wild animals (Prins and Grootenhuis 2000).

For instance, in Africa, a large proportion of the human

population is dependent on the land for their (economic)

well-being. Together with the presence of many species of

large mammals, this leads to a high density of conflict

between people and wildlife (De Boer and Baquete 1998).

This, in turn, creates friction between managers of

protected areas and local communities living in regions that

border these protected areas. Consequently, the resulting

3

human-wildlife conflicts often undermine local support for

conservation (e.g., Gusset et al. 2009)

The main losses suffered by the local communities are

primarily crop damage, livestock depredation and human loss

and casualties due to wild animals. Sometimes local people

are also killed or injured by wildlife not only during

collection of forest resources but also in their

settlements. The local farmers feel entitled to compensation

for these losses that are an outcome of habitat protection

in the parks and reserves. Crop raiding by nuisance animals

leads to the development of negative attitudes among locals

towards the conservation particularly that of endangered

animals like leopard, fox/jackal and wild boar (Miah, D,

Rahman, L and Ahsan, F , 2001).

The problem of human wildlife conflicts is not an old issue,

it is becoming more and more critical and can be observed

anywhere in the PAs (Shrestha, 1994). Several researchs are

carried out to minimize human-wildlife conflict inside

protected areas. But only few researches are done to shed

light on Human-Wildlife conflict outside protected areas.

Thus this research attempts to fulfill that missing data.

Rationale of the study

4

Due to isolation of the local people from the park

management and ignorance of their subsistence requirement

from park resources, most of the PAs in Nepal are facing

park – people conflict (Sharma 1990). Similarly,

agricultural crops and livestock depredation caused by

animals also influenced the local people to behave adversely

towards park management (HMG/UNDP, 1995). It was realized

that without good relations and co-operations of the local

people, no conservation measures would be successful.

Human wildlife conflict has both direct and indirect costs

for human beings. Destruction and loss of food crops,

livestock depredation and human harassment are direct costs

of human-wildlife conflict .People wildlife conflict is one

of the main threats to the continued survival of many

wildlife species. Most of the people residing around the

study areas are illiterate and poor and are depended on

forest resources for their subsistence daily life. They thus

are putting heavy pressure to the surrounding forests. The

conflicts that result from the destruction of crops and

damage to property are serious conservation issues. Common

leopard and wild boar residing on/near the study areas has been

a prime reason for livestock predation, human casualties and

crop damage and thus are the prime target species for this

research. Other wildlife species like jackals/foxes and further

small wildlife species has also been creating

5

troubles/conflicts with humans. Efforts to keep animals out

of crop fields by wildlife officers are often futile and

sometimes result in people perceiving the animals as being

malevolent. Crop raiding is likely to become one of the most

difficult and pressing management problems due to increase

in human population and expansion of agricultural land. On

one hand, damages in a small extent may affect them

seriously, on the other people who are suffered from these

damages are not getting compensation what they have actually

lost.

Different studies were undertaken in different protected

areas of Nepal on HWC. Various such studies have also been

carried out in nearby protected areas i.e. Shivapuri

National Park and surrounding areas but no similar studies

to assess HWC have been undertaken in the areas outside

Protected Areas. This study will give the baseline

information on extent of HWC i.e. socio-economic, people

perception on conservation and other issues. Outcomes of

this study will be useful for the responsible wildlife

officials and other accountable organizations to frame

strategy for proper management and conservation of natural

resources and also in alleviating HWC around these areas.

Objective

6

The broad objective of the study is to assess and explore

over all human-wildlife conflict in the study area as these

areas suffers from wildlife conflicts associated with

various species like common leopard, wild boar and others.

In addition, previous research in these areas is very rare.

Study will focus on following specific objectives:

To find out the current situation of the human-wildlife

conflict.

To explore the methods and techniques adopted by the

local people to reduce human wildlife conflict.

To identify the attitude of local people towards nature

conservation and management.

Limitations of the study

It is not possible to take the Actual measurement of

damages caused by wildlife and it will be based on

respondents view

Only the major crops and livestock damage will be

identified

All the information will be collected using qualitative

methods.

Methodology

Selection of the area:

This study will be carried out in Chapagaun, Godawari,

Bisankunarayan and Dhapakhel VDCs of Lalitpur district.

7

This area is selected because of following reasons:

- The proposed area is being suffered from human-

wildlife conflict

- Abundant forest resources providing habitats for

various wildlife.

- Researcher is familiar to the area.

Data collection

Primary data collection For primary data collection, following tools will be

used;

Key informants interview: Key information interview (KII)

will be done with selected person, local people,

school teacher. The KII will be done to know

about the current condition of human wildlife

conflict., to find out resource use conflict and

its mitigation measures. This also helps to

cross check the information provided during

household survey.

Focus Group Discussion: At least four focus group

discussions will be done with the local people in

order to gather information regarding their

common views towards the interface and possibly to

be familiar with the potential respondents

Likert Scale test: Likert scale test, value ranging from

(1-5) will be used to know the perception of the

8

people towards tiger conservation. 1 means

“strongly agree” and 5 means “strongly disagree”.

Questionnaire survey: Structured questionnaire will be

used to collect data. For this survey, number of

households will be taken as sample using following

formula.

Sample size (n) = [N*z^2*P (1-P)] / [N*d2 +

z^2*P (1-P)]

Where,

N = Total number of households

z = value of standard variant at 95% confidence

level (1.96)

P = estimated population proportion (0.05)

d = error limit of 5% (0.05)

(Purposed by Arkin and Colton, 1963 and adopted by Shahi, 2000)

Direct observation: The damaged area will be observed

directly, if possible, to quantify its intensity.

Secondary data collection

Secondary data will be collected from Office of DNPWC, NTNC,

IOF library, and VDC/ FUG office.

Data analysis

9

Data will be analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Chi-square test will be used for analyzing local people's

attitude towards forest conservation and management..

Expected Outputs and Dissemination

This research will explore the wildlife damages prevailing

in different VDCs of Lalitpur district. Findings will

helpful to the responsible forest/wildlife officials to

minimize Human-Wildlife conflict regarding wildlife damages.

The findings will be disseminated through seminar

presentation in IOF campus in the presence of IOF Faculty,

and students of IOF. Reports will be submitted to IOF

campus.

Personnel

The researcher is a student of B. Sc final year, Institute

of forestry/Pokhara. This research is for the partial

fulfillment of the B.Sc. Forestry degree. For field

assistant local people will be hired to get help during

field study. Co-operation and support from the field level

organization is also expected.

10

Study Schedule

See in Annex – 1

Cost of the Study

See in Annex – 2

Questionnaire for household survey

See in Annex-3

Annex-1

S.No.

S.No.Activities Months

July-Aug

Aug-Sept

Sept-Oct

Oct-Nov

Nov-Dec

11

1 LiteratureReview

**** **** **** **** **

2 ReconnaissanceSurvey

**

3 Field Visitingand DataCollection

** ***

4 Data Analysis * ***5 Report

Preparation andSeminar

* *

6 Final ReportWriting andsubmission

***

Note: -1. One Asterisk (*) stands for one week.

Annex - 2

S.No.

Description Day Rate(NRs)Perdiem

Amount(NRs)

1 Researchers 30 200.00 6,000.00

2 Field Assistant 20 150.00 3,000.00

3 Traveling Cost 3,000.00

4 Stationary costtyping,printing,binding,photocopy etc.)

3000.00

5 Seminar 2,000.00

6 Grand total 17,000.00

12

In words: seventeen thousand only.

Reference:

Bhatta, S. (2003): “Draft Report on Elephant- Human Conflict in Nepal Terai Park areas withParticular emphasis to Western Terai Arc Landscape”. Kathmandu, Nepal

Bhattarai, TP (Aug. 1999), Livestock depredation and

human harassment by wildlife and its control.

Bhattarai, B.P. 2003. Population Status and

conservation threats of wild ungulates in Barandabhar

corridor forest, Chitwan M.Sc. Thesis. Tribhuvan

University, Nepal. Pages. 62.

Deodatus, F. 2000. Wildlife damage in rural areas with

emphasis on Malawi. Pages 115–140 in H. H. T. Prins, J.

G. Grootenhuis, and T. T. Dolan, editors. Wildlife

conservation by sustainable use. Kluwer Academic

Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4012-6_7

De Boer, W. F., and D. S. Baquete. 1998. Natural

resource use, crop damage and attitudes of rural people

in the vicinity of Maputo Elephant Reserve,

Mozambique.Environmental Conservation 25:208–218.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ S0376892998000265

Dickman, A. J. 2010. Complexities of conflict: the

importance of considering social factors for

13

effectively resolving human- wildlife conflict. Animal

Conservation 13:458–466. [online] URL:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00368.x

Distefano, E. (2010): “Human-Wildlife Conflictworldwide: collection of case studies, analysis ofmanagement strategies and good practices”. Retrievedfrom:www.fao.org/sard/common/ecg/1357/en/hwc_final.pdf

Hemson, G., S. Maclennan, G. Mills, P. Johnson, and D.

Macdonald. 2009. Community, lions, livestock and money:

a spatial and social analysis of attitudes to wildlife

and the conservation value of tourism in a human–

carnivore conflict in Botswana. Biological Conservation

142:2718–2725. [online] URL:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.06.024

HMG/UNDP(1995), Buffer zone development bulletin

Vol.11, No. 1 Dec 1995

Jnawali, S.R. 1989. Park-people Conflict. An assessment

of crop damage and human harassment due to Rhinoceros

in Sauraha area adjacent to Royal Chitwan National

Park. Nepal.

Manfredo, M. J., and A. A. Dayer. 2004. Concepts for

exploring the social aspects of human–wildlife conflict

in a global context. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9:1–

20. [online] URL:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10871200490505765

14

Newmark, W. D., D. N. Manyanza, D. G. M. Gamassa, and

H. I. Sariko. 1994. The conflict between wildlife and

local people living adjacent to protected areas in

Tanzania: human density as a predictor. Conservation

Biology 8:249–255. [online] URL:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08010249.x

Paudyal, P. R., (1995): An assessment of Crop

Depredation Due to Wildlife in Shivapuri Watershed and

Wildlife Reserve: A Case of Sundarijal VDC, in Theses

Abstracts Related to Forestry: A Compendium, Tree Improvement

and Silvicultural Component, Department of Forest, TISC

Document SERIES No. 101, NARMSAP.

Sharma, UR (1990), an overview of park-people

interaction in Royal Chitwan National Park (RCNP)

Shrestha, B 1994. Studies on park –people conflict,

investigation on resolving resources conflicts between

park conservation and adjoining settlements in the

northeastern boundary of RCNP. M.Sc thesis in Zoology,

Tribhuwan Univrsity, Kirtipur, Nepal.

WWF (2005): “Human Wildlife Conflict Manual-Wildlife

Management Series”, World Wildlife Fund, Switzerland

Questionnaire for Local people

Name of the respondent

15

Address: VDC: - Ward no.

Tole

Sex. Age.

Problem associated with crop damage

1. How much land do you have? Bigha /

Katha

2. How far is your land from the Forest Area?

Km.

3. What kinds of crop do you grow in your field?

a. Maize b. Wheat c. Rice d. Lentils e. Barley f.

Others

4. Do you have crop damage problem from wild animals? Yes

/No

5. If yes, how much amount of crop does the animal damage

per year?..........Quintal

6. How much of land do you cultivate

crop?..........Katha / .........Bigha

7. Which animal mostly damages your crop?

a. Wild Boar b. Fox/Jackal c. Leopard d. others

8. When do they usually visit? Day/Night

9. How often do they enter the field?

a. Every Day b. Every night c. 1-2 times per week d. 1-

2 times per month e. Never

10. Do you apply some techniques to chase wild animals from

field? Yes/No

11. If yes, what kind of technique do you apply?

16

a. Shouting and following b. Following with fire c.

Following with fire and shouting

d. Following + throwing stones + Shouting e. Scaring

by hitting tin boxes

f. Machan guarding g. Others

12. Do you grow all kinds of crop, which are common in

surrounding area? Yes/ No

13. If yes, which crop not grown?

a. Maize b. Wheat c. Mustard d. Lentil e. Rice f.

Others

14. If any from 13, why do you not grow?

a. Difficult to grow b. Wild life damage problem c.

Low yield e. Less market demand

15. Do you leave some land area fallow during some period

year due to wild life problem? Yes/ No

16. If yes, How much land do you leave

fallow?…………Bigha/Katha

17. Are you able to support your family from agriculture?

Yes / no

18. If no, because part of your crops are destroyed by wild

life? Yes/ No

19. Do you get any compensation for this type of damage?

Yes/No

20. Are you willing to participate, if crop insurance

program is initiated?

17

21. Do you think the damage is increasing every year after

the establishment of reserve?

a. Increased b. same as before c. decreased

Problem associated with livestock depredation, injury and

human harassment.1. Number of livestock

Livestock Adult Sub- adult TotalBuffaloesCattleGoat/sheepOthers2. Have wild animals attacked your domestic animals or/and

member of your family? Yes /No

3. If yes, at what amount?

For domestic animals

Predators 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Inju

red

Kille

d

Inju

red

Kill

ed

Inju

red

Kill

ed

Inju

red

Kill

ed

Injur

ed

Kill

edWild BoarLeopardJackal/FoxOthers

For house member

Predators 2010 2011 2012 213 2014

18

Wild Boar Inju

red

Kille

d

Inju

red

Kill

ed

Inju

red

Kill

ed

Inju

red

Kill

ed

Inju

red

Kill

edLeopardJackal/

FoxOthers

4. Where and in which situation was the domestic animal

attacked?

5. Where and how did the animal attack a member of your

family?

6. If injured by wild animals, do you receive any help or

medical facility from reserve authority? Yes/No

7. Is there any compensation scheme for this type of

damage?

8. Do you think the compensation is sufficient or reasonable

in comparison to the damage? Yes/No

Problem associated with property damage

1. Do you have property damage problem? Yes /No2. If yes, up to what extent?

S.

No

Property

type

Partial Damage Complete damage Estimated amount

1

19

23

Recommendation for wild life damage

1.Have you any recommendation to reduce the livestock

depredation, human casualties and property loss?

Problem associated with livestock grazing

1.Do you stall fed your livestock or take it for grazing?

a. Stall fed b.

Grazing2. If you graze, where did/do graze your livestock?

Places Past PresentReserveBuffer community

forestPrivate landStall feedingOthers

3. If you stall fed, then where do you get the fodder?

Problem associated with resource use from the forest.

1. Energy use pattern

Energy sources Before FUG program After FUG programFuel wood

20

KeroseneElectricityBio- gas

2. Resource use pattern

Sources Timber Fuel wood Fodder Others

(NTFPs)Presen

t

Pa

st

Prese

nt

Pas

t

Prese

nt

Past Prese

nt

Past

CFReservePrivate

landOthers

Peoples' attitude towards forest management and conservation

1. Is it necessary to conserve the forest? Yes /No

2. How do you feel about forest management?

a. good b. fair c. not

good

At last, can you prioritize the major three problems?

1.

2.

3.

21

Questionnaire for VDC/FUG/DFO staffs

1. What types of problems the VDC is facing due to the

settlement of local people around the forest area?

a.

e.

b. f.

c.

g.

d. h.

2. What types of the problems do people have in these areas?

a. d.

b. e.

c. f.

3. Can you prioritize the three major issues that have led

Wildlife Human conflict?

a.

b.

c.

4. Is there problem growing recently? Yes / No

5. Are there any policies implemented by the Government to

resolve the problem of Human- Wildlife conflict? Yes/No

6.If yes, what are they?

7. Are the local people allowed to enter into the forest

without permission? Yes/No

22

8. If yes, for what purposes?

9. Do you think that the local people know that is illegal

to enter the forest area and to collect material from the

forest?

a. Yes they do b. No they don't

10. If they do, then why do they get involved in such

activities? Please give me your opinion

11. What action do the reserve authorities take when they

find the people carrying out illegal activities inside the

forest?

Checklist for Key informants interview

1. Major sources of human-wildlife conflicts.

2. Wildlife damages.

3. Extent of damages.

4. Trend of damages.

5. Livestock grazing

6. Resource use

7. Illegal activities like poaching, fishing, poisoning.

8. Efforts and remedy measures made to minimize wildlife

damages.

9. Effectiveness of different efforts and remedy measures.

10. Compensation for wildlife damages.

23

11. Situation of wildlife damages and human- wildlife

conflicts after establishment of community forest

12. How FUG program is going on.

13. Revenue sharing

14. Suggest ways to minimize wildlife damage and human-

wildlife conflicts

24