Abstract
Co-management is recognized as crucial in developing sustainable policies to address the deteriorating relationship between humans and wildlife. This approach is inclusive and particularly effective in areas where humans and wildlife share the same resources. The sharing of resources often leads to unsustainable practices. Many studies proved that co-management involves diverse stakeholders, including experts, forest staff, conservation organizations, and the local community, to negotiate conflicting interests effectively. Hence, studying the coexistence strategies implemented by different stakeholders has provided valuable insights into the potential interactions and coexistence of humans and wildlife outside of protected areas. The article examined the local management strategies employed to address human–elephant relations in this context. Additionally, the article discusses various co-management approaches aimed at improving the relationship between humans and wild elephants, along with the factors contributing to building co-management capacity. This article is based on the ethnographic study conducted among the Bodo community residing near the Indo-Bhutan border in Assam, where the local Bodo community experiences conflict with wild elephants.
Introduction
Human–wildlife conflict (HWC) is defined as “occurring when the needs and behavior of wildlife have a negative impact on human goals, or when human goals negatively impact the needs of wildlife” (IUCN, 2005, p. 185). Researchers in various fields, such as Zoology, Applied Ecology, and Wildlife Studies, have conducted detailed inquiries into HWC (Knight, 2000, p. 4). Such studies reveal the incompatibility between human beings and wildlife, which poses challenges to conservation. They highlight the threats to wildlife, especially endangered animals, in protected areas such as reserve forests, wildlife sanctuaries, and national parks, often locating people living near these reserves as hindrances to conservation (Knight, 2000). Choudhury (2004) reports that between 1980 and 2003, 1,150 humans and 300 elephants died due to conflict in Northeast India. These findings illustrate the incompatible relationship between humans and wildlife, raising serious questions about wildlife and whether local human presence (people living near conservation or wildlife areas) is desirable in conservation efforts.
There has been growing interest in the conflictual aspects, apart from those about the environment (Ango et al., 2016). The former approach explains the experiences of HWC that shape the behavior of affected individuals and communities toward wildlife and animals. A similar study by Treves and Naughton-Treves (2005) reveals that economic impacts and catastrophic incidents shape local people’s perception of wildlife in HWC situations. For instance, Wang et al. (2006) reveal the unwillingness among agro-pastoralists, a population of around 5,500, to promote the idea of a protected area for wildlife in Jigme Singye Wangchuk National Park (JSWNP), Bhutan. They had experienced human casualties and property damage due to HWC. Research shows that retaliatory responses to conflict, such as poisoning, shooting and trapping carnivores, and other unsustainable strategies, were utilized to engage with wildlife (Wydeven et al., 2009). Such investigations discuss the animosity and lack of cooperation between humans and wildlife. Thus, the conflict approach highlights the incompatibility between the requirements of wildlife conservation and human safety.
So, what is the alternative proposal that would help prevent conflicts? It should only be the centralization of intervention in conservation, involving local people and building separate living spaces. Woolaston et al. (2021) argue that regulation through law could legitimize the designation of territories as protected areas and, as a result, shape the values, attitudes, and relationships people have with the land and animals. Consider a situation where a person is sanctioned from using the resource (land) due to the law designating it as a protected area. Such incidents result in anger and resentment toward wild animals and endangered wildlife within the protected area, increasing conflict among the stakeholders, the campaigners for protected areas, and the lawmakers (Woolaston et al., 2021, p. 3). Therefore, sanctioning local people from using resources is a contentious issue.
Mmopelwa and Mpolokeng (2008, pp. 147–156) assert that withdrawing compensation to the people affected would intensify conflict, while incentivization would help develop a positive attitude toward wildlife. These instances prove that emphasizing wildlife protection without due respect for the sentiments and lives of the local inhabitants is a primary concern in conservation. In addition, Vaske et al. (2001) argue that conservation management encounters difficulties because benefits and liabilities are often distributed unequally among all segments of society. For instance, elephants attract tourists who visit the park in Cameron during the summer season and generate revenue. However, during other times, like the wet season, elephants walk up to 100 km and raid farms in places without tourist facilities (Tchamba, 1996). Furthermore, it is mentioned that the top–down model governance of HWC results in animosity among stakeholders (Storie & Bell, 2016). Therefore, centralizing conservation amid conflict without considering human habitation next to protected areas would fail to negotiate the interests of various stakeholders.
Academic investigations based on conflict frameworks have been challenged for their focus on the negative impact of conflict and the damage to wildlife caused by anthropogenic threats (Pooley et al., 2020). Peterson et al. (2010) assert that the conflict framework fails to comprehend the coexistence of human beings, wildlife, and associated value systems. Bhatia et al. (2019) mentioned that such approaches focus too heavily on HWC and pay relatively less attention to their coexistence and neutral interactions. Others argue that the focus on conflict reinforces the human-nature dichotomy (Peterson et al., 2010; Pooley et al., 2020) and portrays wild animals as consciously combative with human beings (Peterson et al., 2010).
The coexistence approach explores possible strategies for coexistence between human beings and wildlife amid conflict. It emphasizes the concept of “coexistence” as a sustainable, dynamic state in which human beings and wildlife coadapt to share landscapes, and human interactions with wild animals are regulated to enable the latter to survive in socially legitimate ways with the risk levels being tolerable (Pooley et al., 2020, p. 784). Furthermore, the approach maintains that coexistence does not imply a lack of conflict but instead requires risk tolerance and the management of threats within acceptable limits (Pooley et al., 2020). The approach aims to achieve constitutional regulations that propose context-specific policies, allowing local people to adapt (Carter & Linnell, 2016). Therefore, instead of promoting a dichotomy, the approach highlights the spirit of coexistence between human beings and wildlife. Thus, it demonstrates the relevance of local people’s strategies in wildlife management and improves the deteriorating relationship between human beings and wildlife.
In the coexistence approach, the significant role allotted to local people is a key characteristic that differentiates it from conflict frameworks in managing wildlife. These views aim to decentralize wildlife management by encouraging local communities to participate in conservation. The collective approach, known as co-management methods (also referred to as participatory management, joint management, shared management, management in partnership, and multi-stakeholder management), ensures the establishment of negotiated agreements between the staff of protected areas and other stakeholders, including local people who utilize the resources (Borrini et al., 2000). Participatory planning is believed to be effective in enhancing the perception of partners through mitigation programs, and local stakeholders from affected areas gradually recognize the importance of local participation in addressing conflicts (Halvorsen, 2003; Raik et al., 2005). Furthermore, a study by Vaske et al. (2001) states that regulations regarding population relocation must follow a cooperative management approach involving native people from conflict areas to ensure that their livelihoods are not affected while optimizing wildlife values within society. Therefore, it is perceived that co-management of HWC through proper strategies allows local participation in decision-making and facilitates negotiations among potential stakeholders in addressing conservation issues. However, given the diverse interests involved, the question of how the capacity building would be possible needs to be answered at the collective level. Nonetheless, since co-management involves local communities and other stakeholders, the nature and importance of capacity building in management can be addressed through alternative policy approaches and interventions that collectively promote success and create conditions for capacity building.
Johansson and Karlsson (2011) and Hudenko (2012) highly recommend collaborating on conservationist studies with social scientists studying prejudice, stereotypes, behavior, and human attitudes. Addressing the rational and emotional aspects of human reactions to wildlife is essential in studying human–wildlife relations (Hudenko, 2012; Johansson & Karlsson, 2011). Treves et al. (2006) also considered that input from social scientists is critical in developing participatory planning and understanding the perceptions and socio-economic practices of the people. Investigating human coexistence with nature in diverse sociocultural and ecological settings is significant in understanding human–wildlife relations. Hence, employing ethnographic studies to understand the diverse cultural systems in response to adaptation practices (Pooley et al., 2020) is recommended. Regarding study sites, König et al. (2020) state that various areas, such as multiple-use landscapes, habitat encroachment, and re-wilding, should be part of research to understand human–wildlife relations.
The study attempts to investigate the coping mechanisms of local people in managing elephant-related threats to safety, as well as the implementation of welfare measures for both people and wildlife through conservation efforts. Moreover, it explores the conditions in which intervention inputs influence people to tolerate wild elephants and the degree to which they foster participation in conservation activities. Being an ethnographic study, the article explores how local individuals perceive and approach management strategies. It focuses on the emic perspective, which emphasizes understanding from a human standpoint. The study examines concepts such as capacity building, coadaptation strategies, and conservation practices extending beyond the confines of the protected area. It focuses explicitly on residents living close to the Assam reserve areas, offering valuable insights into our comprehension of sustainable practices in this region.
The study is important as human–elephant conflict can lead to injuries and fatalities for both humans and elephants. By managing conflicts, humans can protect these elephants, foster a sense of pride and responsibility toward wildlife, and develop measures to reduce such incidents, enhancing the safety of local communities and wildlife. In addition, many communities living near elephant habitats like Kundurbil depend on agriculture and natural resources for their livelihoods. Managing conflicts helps protect these livelihoods and fosters sustainable coexistence between humans and elephants. Eventually, resolving human–elephant conflict can promote socio-economic development in affected regions. It allows for better resource management and fosters a conducive environment for growth and prosperity.
Methodology
The study was conducted in villages located in Kundurbil No. 3, Kundurbil Nursery, Bongurung (Part of Kundurbil Area) in Udalguri district, Assam (Northeast India). These villages were selected based on purposive sampling following the conflicts between humans and wild elephants, resulting in the loss of seven human lives and one wild elephant death between 2013 and 2015, including damaged crops and houses. Moreover, villages have also lost human lives prior to 2013–2015 years as well (preliminary visit interview with locals). The study utilized both primary and secondary data collection methods. Primary data was gathered through ethnographic techniques such as observation, participant observation, census schedules, case studies, and individual resident interviews. All the villagers with a frequency of 98 families from these villages were interviewed, with the participant selection being based on their experiences with conflicts involving human–wild elephants near the Nonoi Forest Range at the foothills of the Himalayas in the Indo-Bhutan Border. In this sense, 98 respondents were selected because of direct or indirect experience of conflict in villages. The interviews employed semi-structured and open-ended questions to explore the conflict and the strategies used to manage it. Open-ended questions were instrumental in understanding various aspects of the mitigation strategies adopted to manage the conflict and generating additional questions within the context of human–elephant relations.
The research additionally encompassed interviewing various stakeholders, including five government forest officials and one program management team. For the interviews with affected individuals, the researchers used the Bodo language, their mother tongue, whereas the interactions with government officials were conducted in Assamese. Subsequently, all interviews were translated into English for analysis. The interview sessions lasted 40–60 min each, and audio recordings were created with the participants’ consent. Case studies were utilized to examine damage to property, fatalities among human beings, and elephant deaths in the villages under scrutiny to gain further insight into the conflict. The case studies also primarily relied on documents from affected families and official records about human losses.
Additionally, a census of 98 families was used to understand the socio-economic conditions of the affected individuals, providing information on household income and occupations. Furthermore, the study employed observation and participant observation methods to corroborate and validate the information obtained through interviews. Observation, a key ethnographic research method, enabled the researcher to focus on specific objects, surroundings, and people relevant to the study. Participant observation was also conducted during a mitigation activity involving the pursuit of wild elephants, providing insights into the nature of the conflict and management strategies. Secondary sources such as books, journals, census reports, governmental documents, published and unpublished materials, various articles, and other relevant sources complement the primary data and provide a broader perspective.
Significance of the Article
Studies on human–wild elephant relations are critical as they involve prospects and challenges. Wildlife can be managed within protected areas, and its relations with human beings can be controlled through institutionalized regulation and management staff. Nevertheless, more than limiting wildlife movement to protected areas alone is needed, as animals often move to human habitats. In such situations, humans and animals share the same resources, and interaction becomes problematic for both. Hence, using the management beyond protected areas leads to conflicts, as the local people are also part of the region. As such, it is essential to understand local management strategies and other approaches. The present article examines the coping strategies of local people in managing threats posed by elephants to human safety and welfare, as well as to long-term conservation efforts.
Background of the Human and Wild Elephant Conflict in the Study Area
The population under study belongs to the Bodo tribe, one of the dominant ethnic tribal communities in the district. They are considered the largest group, spread out over the north side of the Brahmaputra valley, along the Indo-Bhutan border and the Arunachal border in Northeast India. They primarily inhabit the Bodoland Territorial Region (BTR). The region was created by accord on January 27th, 2020, in the north-western part of Assam. It is an autonomous administrative region created to protect and promote the rights and interests of the Bodo people. The location for the present study is Kundurbil No. 3, located in the foothills of the Himalayas in the Indo-Bhutan border area. An inquiry into cases of human–elephant conflict in the village under study reveals that seven human beings and one elephant died between 2013 and 2016. The case study from the interview shows that victims of conflict are trapped in conditions where they have to respond immediately. In such conditions, the population under study has to manage the situation. The condition is explained in the following case study. Case study 1: This case study is about the incident of a man attacked and killed by a wild elephant. According to a widow (deceased person wife due to elephant attack), the incident occurred around 6.00
Moreover, the study also shows the natural conflict based on encounters between humans and wild elephants. It reflects that encounters with wild elephants in the study area are uncertain, and encounters can occur at times. Such a condition creates a vulnerable situation for those who encounter wild elephants, leaving limited options to be protected. Subsequently, intervention in the form of compensation might be observed after the conflict. For instance, the case study below reflects such conditions. Case study 2: This case study is again about an encounter of the villagers with a wild elephant from the village Baongurung, Kundurbil area. The incident occurred at 7:00
The conflict between human–wild elephants in the study area also highlights the lack of basic facilities to be protected. The chance of being targeted and damaging human belongings is always high in conflict areas if houses are not strong enough to protect from attack. The case study below shows that helpless condition. Case study 3: Case study information for this case study is collected from a nursery near No. 3. The village is near the Bhola river, where the elephants cross seasonally. The incident took place around 10:30
In addition, vulnerable communities like the Bodo and unsustainable living conditions often faced due to this conflict might also observed. In this sense, victims suffer, resulting in economic losses and food insecurity. Additionally, cases from the studies, such as elephants, directly threaten human safety and food security due to unsustainable housing. Case study 4: Another case study is from the Motorline, a sub-region of Kundurbil No. 3. This incident happened as an individual elephant came around 8:00 Moving directly toward a particular house, the individual elephant tossed the mud wall of the raw rice storehouse. The elephant ate the paddy, which was around 60–70 kg. However, the elephant did not attack anyone, as the family stayed away from the house. This was an advance act of recognition. The owner and the other neighbors tried to chase the elephant away by shouting, beating on the tin to protect the raw rice and damaging the houses further. However, the elephant was eating rice confidently. As one of the neighbors came and started the instrument, “the engine of the chain saw machine” which produces heavy sound, at once, the elephant moved away from the house. Unfortunately, the local people only have protection measures for shouting and beating on tin. From the informants, it is known that there is one dragon electric light in the village granted by the forest office; however, in this particular incident, the light was not used as it had become impossible for them to reach for it immediately.
The study reveals that there are no secure protection measures to control or escape the conflict. The cases show the availability of dragon light, which is more advanced in terms of protection and co-management for villagers. However, such measurements cannot manage the safety of humans and the belongings and possessions of households. Therefore, cases of conflict highlight uncontrolled lives, particularly when a person encounters a wild elephant. Subsequently, it affects family members and victims at different levels. Different stakeholders are taking the initiative to manage and co-manage the conflict, including the villagers who are victims.
Management Strategies for Human–Elephant Conflict
The following section discusses mitigation strategies to handle human–elephant conflict. Implementing sustainable approaches to co-manage human–elephant relations involves employing methods that ensure a long-term balance between human activities and elephant conservation. Some examples of sustainable strategies for co-management include effective land use policy, use of technology, compensation to the affected, non-lethal deterrents, community engagements, promotion of sustainable livelihoods, and traditional methods learned through experience. Adopting such sustainable co-management methods recognizes the importance of human needs and wild elephant conservation, aiming to establish a coexistence that would benefit both parties in the long run.
The affected population in the area employed various traditional approaches that had previously proven effective, as well as modern methods and coexistence strategies. Thant et al. (2022) state that empowering the local community facilitates the development of a positive attitude toward elephants and maximizes participation in conservation efforts. The active involvement of local people is highly essential for sustaining wildlife (Paudyal et al., 2018). The present study observed participation at two levels—the individual level and the collective (group) level. The former relies on individual capacity in terms of access to land, capital substantiated in the form of crop diversification, erecting barriers, and short-term methods like the use of dragon torchlights. However, collective coping strategies depend on kinships and village communities through sharing, reciprocity, and joint space management. Moreover, collective mechanisms include third groups such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), governments, forest departments, and conflict management groups through various means (e.g., financial incentives to change crops, distribution of equipment, and awareness programs). Local people engage in self-developed interventional strategies to mitigate HWC, with the costs borne either by the individual or the community.
Traditional Early Alert Systems
The most common protective equipment that individuals finance includes barbed wires, solar lights, and bamboo fences. Bamboo fencing, a conventional early alert system, involves tying a long bamboo horizontally 3–4 ft above the ground and 40–60 ft from houses and kitchen gardens. If an elephant crosses this boundary, the bamboo would break, and the sound would alert the people nearby. This early alert system helps protect family members from being attacked and prevents damage to houses and property. All households in the village use it under study. The sighting of wild elephants is treated as evidence of their presence in the region. A woman from Baurajan asserted that the presence of elephants can be detected from the smell of decomposed mud in the air, even from a distance. She mentioned that she had several experiences where she could smell wet mud when wild elephants were nearby. This can be explained by considering wild elephants’ instinct to stay in cold, wet mud, splattering it across their bodies in any season.
Land Use Policy and Habitat Management
Developing conflict resolution mechanisms involves stakeholders from various sectors, such as government agencies, conservation organizations, and local communities, to facilitate dialogue, negotiations, and mutually acceptable solutions within the study area. Land use policies and well-designed land use plans that consider wildlife corridors, protected areas, and human settlement patterns minimize the overlap between humans and wildlife, thus reducing conflicts, which helps in the long run. Crop diversification is an important policy that helps avoid conflict with wild elephants. Crop diversification at the household level is an effective habitat management strategy to prevent attacks on people and houses. In the early periods of crop diversification, a few families replaced targeted crops like sugar cane, tubers (cassava), pumpkins, and rice with areca nut, chilly, and tea because such items did not attract elephants. Earlier, people needed to know crop diversification’s effect on minimizing elephant attacks on houses. The local people preferred these targeted crops due to the availability of resources such as rain and fertile soil. However, all these crops became the favored food items of elephants; hence, they had to replace some of them with alternate plants like tea. Such methods proved beneficial, and elephants refrained from raiding these crops. In addition, several tea growers considered planting banana and jackfruit trees to feed elephants since they considered it their divine responsibility to look after wild animals.
Similar land-use policy ideas have also been intensified by “World Vision,” an NGO. They distributed around 3,000 tea saplings to each household to create awareness of such alternatives. The local people adopted this strategy, and about 98% of the families in the village planted tea near their houses, as it is not a food item preferred by elephants. Tea is cultivated behind houses, and the plantation discourages elephants from raiding kitchen gardens, damaging homes, and attacking human beings. The elephant can uproot the mature tea plant; however, there have not been any proven instances of elephants destroying tea plants intentionally. Generally, tea planting and maintenance are lengthy processes, and the owner has to take special care of the saplings. In the process, the old branches, which are called Kolom hwnai, are cut, and new buds grow. Some branches with pointed edges are retained to prevent elephants from ramping inside the gardens, thus averting damage to life and property.
Cultivating tea gardens near houses has two benefits—protection from elephants and financial empowerment. It helps augment family income and creates employment by opening avenues for business. According to Biru (a local person), there has been an instance of a man escaping from being attacked by elephants because the animals could not move quickly in the tea garden. Here, home tea gardens and small tea gardens prevented a victim. Some local people could shift to pucca houses using the income from the tea garden, and this helped significantly in reducing human casualties during elephant attacks. Some families have ceased going to the mountains to collect wood and pursue means of livelihood since such journeys increase the chances of encounters with wild elephants; instead, they work in their tea gardens.
Building Capacity and Collective Mechanisms
Building capacity through collective mechanisms is also an important management strategy that benefits other villagers and stakeholders. Traditional ways of keeping elephants away, including hunting knives and jongor (pointed iron rod placed at the top of bamboo around 10 ft long), beating tins and shouting to scare away elephants, have proved effective for village communities. Such methods alert everyone in the village, enabling them to be ready to chase away the animals. For instance, villagers shout “mwider mwider” (“elephant, elephant”) to inform villagers if the animals approach the village (observed mainly during field periods). Even in the middle of the night, people shout to warn neighbors and others of the impending arrival of elephants. This is a common practice in all conflict areas in Kundurbil—individual actions like shouting prompt others to act and protect the community by keeping wild animals away.
Utilizing technologically advanced equipment, such as dragon lights, solar lights, and firecrackers, helps minimize potential conflicts, allowing for timely interventions. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF, 2010) and the forest department assist villagers by providing dragon electrical searchlights and firecrackers during a potential conflict. Moreover, individuals also use such technology. For instance, Bhobram Daimari owned a dragon torchlight, which he purchased with his own money and was used to chase away elephants at night. The villagers of Kundurbil beat tin with a piece of bamboo to produce sound, shouting “mwider mwider” (“elephant, elephant”), “hw hw,” (“Go Go”), to chase away the elephants from human settlements (The researcher witnessed this). One night, “harsing beraigra mwider” (an individual elephant) was passing through the west canal (where water flows only when there is heavy rain), one of the corridors through which elephants cross the village yearly. Bhobram, a tea garden owner near the corridor, woke up at around 12:12
Moreover, the tea garden owner also directed the torchlight to his neighbor’s house as the elephant was moving away to prevent it from entering. Another neighbor also asked Bhobram to direct the light toward their side, which he did. In this way, individual ownership of equipment enables collective protection for the village. The district authorities, recognizing the efficiency of such equipment, provided a dragon light for the village. The instance highlights how collective sustainable coping mechanisms involving the villagers and government officials help prevent or mitigate the effects of human–elephant encounters.
Using non-lethal technology is an important management strategy to engage with human–elephant conflict in the areas under study. Several villagers adopted technological equipment such as jhatka (the low electric wire that pushes back elephants if they touch it, without causing significant injuries, mainly used in tea gardens), barbed wires, solar lights, and firecrackers, which do not pose fatal threats to wild elephants. Tea gardens owned by a group of people use jhatka in times of possible conflict. The resources available to the individuals and groups play a significant role in choosing equipment and strategies, influencing the tea garden owners to develop such strategies. Employing non-lethal equipment such as fences and devices to scare away wild elephants from agricultural lands or human settlements is a significant sustainable measure.
Awareness of Ownership
Involving local communities in decision-making and empowering them to participate in elephant conservation initiatives fosters a sense of ownership and responsibility. This is achieved through education, awareness campaigns, and the establishment of community-based organizations such as the Anti-Depredation Committee in the villages under study. Collective intervention encourages local people to participate in conservation efforts through the Anti-Depredation Committee. The forest management staff from the Udalguri forest division visited the village in 2006 and formed a committee known as the Kundurbil Amjuli Anti-Depredation Committee. The members included farmers from tea gardens, villagers, the head of the village, and forest personnel. The department monitors the boundary along the villages of Kundurbil, Amjuli, and the tea gardens. The committee from Kundurbil is in charge of the east side of Dimasam Nala and the west side of Lakshmi Nala, which are parts of the village. Monitoring and assessing include detecting possible conflicts or threats between human beings and elephants and taking necessary action, such as driving out elephants and preventing unsustainable strategies like poisoning or killing by other means.
The Anti-Depredation Committee collaborates with the district forest department, the WWF (WWF, 2010), the Tezpur Branch, and affected villages like Kundurbil to organize awareness programs for villagers’ safety and adopt sustainable methods. Speakers from the WWF often address the local people. Such approaches ensure their participation in mitigation strategies and create a feeling of ownership in the context of wild elephant conservation. Moreover, it enables capacity building by imparting knowledge and resources and influencing group dynamics.
Specialist Engagement in Conflict Resolution
Moreover, specialist engagement in conflict resolution is significant to coexistence. For instance, the Dhansiri Forest Division, Udalguri, entrusted the responsibility to forest office branches situated in various locations of the district, namely, the Udalguri Head Quarter Beat Office, the Mazbat Range, the Nunoi Range, and the Barnadi Wildlife Range. All these branches, in collaboration with the local people, employed mitigation methods, such as using kumkies (trained elephants) during conflicts, to protect human beings, property, and crops. In some cases, the villagers informed the forest staff of the potential threat from wild elephants and requested them to bring kumkies for help. In one instance, a Kundurbil villager informed the Santipur camp forest staff of a group of 20 wild elephants moving along the village. Two kumkies were used to chase them away. With support from the local people, the department organizes a fodder species plantation program, with a preference for the Banana Rhizome, along the boundaries of the village under study. WWF (WWF, 2010) Tezpur assists the Udalguri Forest Division department. The forest officials also distribute firecrackers and electrical solar charged lights to monitor the movement of elephants.
Compensation for Uplifting Lives After Tragedy
Compensation to affected families for loss of human life and property damage is an important government intervention in co-managing human–animal relationships. It helps alleviate economic losses and reduces negative attitudes toward wild elephants in the affected areas. Four families under study are beneficiaries of such schemes. Compensation in the form of a one-time grant was released through the District Forest Office, Udalguri, WWF (WWF, 2010). According to an order from the District Forest Office, Udalguri, an amount of ₹100,000 is given to the family of the deceased person as compensation for death caused by an attack by wild elephants. In the case of injuries, an amount will be released based on the expenditure incurred, as evidenced through receipts of medical treatment submitted to the office. Rimali Baglary, wife of Sujen Baglary, who died in an encounter with elephants, said that she received ₹100,000 as compensation for the loss of her husband. The amount was utilized to plant a tea garden of around two bighas (1.8 acres), now their primary income source.
Moreover, she was also a beneficiary of the tea sapling scheme of an NGO, World Vision. The deceased is survived by his wife, mother, and three children, who earn their livelihood by plucking tea leaves. The wife also works as a daily wage earner. After the death of her husband, she sent the second daughter to her sister’s house in Sahajuli village, which is about 1 km away, to study and live with them. Estimate-based intervention also includes one-time compensation for damages to property (including houses and paddy fields).
Conclusions
It is understood that agents like forest staff, NGOs, and the local community have implemented co-management in the study area. World Vision, an NGO was implementing a land use policy by providing tea saplings in the study area. Such engagement confirmed that livelihood-based interventions are rewarding in terms of minimizing the conflict related to land use. The research also shows that specific interventions through community engagement allow local people to participate in decision-making processes, which further influence interactions and development in coexistence strategies. Thus, people residing near protected areas are not only sometimes sources of conflict; they can implement effective co-management strategies through community engagement. Savory (1994), a prominent conservationist who developed the “Holistic Management of Natural Resources” approach, suggests that all conservation-related values should be considered (p. 191). In such an approach, the article shows that the collective efforts of the local people, forest staff of the Udalguri District Forest office, and the Anti-Depredation Committee (from the Kundurbil area) have been playing an organized role in the co-management approach to human–elephant relations in the study area. Subsequently, local people’s habituation was noticed as a reduction in response to the presence of elephants in Kundurbil by developing coexistence capacity and not a threat to wild elephants. The repeated exposure to wild elephants has prompted local people to adopt tolerant policies. The intervention improved the panic response of local people to wild elephants and developed a sense of responsibility and belonging as part of conservation efforts. Therefore, established institutional roles are also vital in co-management wild elephants.
Further, the study reinforced the views on conservation articulated by Kopnina (2012), who argues that “natural resources” or “ecosystem services” are not limited and non-human species have intrinsic value among Indigenous people. Various forms of local co-management strategies developed through experience by the indigenous Bodo community within the Kundurbil region have been explored. Jackson and Wangchuk (2001) argued in support of the local people, maintaining that no one likes being told how to behave, mainly if long-held traditions are at risk. The research has recorded similar reactions from local people, who asserted that centralized plans involve re-setting livelihood, rehabilitation, and possible displacement risks. Therefore, co-management is sustainable in such settings since it helps to de-escalate conflicts.
However, co-management still has a challenge in the context of a human–wildlife relationship if a person experiences an encounter with a wild elephant. For instance, when a person encounters wild elephants, as highlighted in the case study, a person’s risk to life, protection of belongings, possessions, basic facilities, and threats to life have not been managed. As a result, its impact might be observed as defending one’s capacity, losing lives, damaging property and possessions, and causing injuries. Though co-management promotes a positive attitude toward wild elephants and raising participants in conservation, it is equally vital to re-direct the co-management approach toward the conflict between humans and elephants encounters. The management response to encounters between humans and elephants, reflected in case studies, might be observed only with individual effort and minimal intervention from co-management, like the distribution of dragon lights and firecrackers. Case studies confirmed that co-management and management initiatives are rare strategies for conflict during the encounter. Therefore, it is a concern for the people from Kundurbil who experience incidents, damage, and injury due to sudden conflict with elephants. Eventually, the collective response toward the encounter is challenging and precarious due to conflict in the presence of elephants and humans at uncertain levels.
Footnotes
Data Availability Statement
All the data used in this article, if required, could be produced to the concerned.
Declaration of Conflicting Interest
The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
