From fear to festivity: Multi‐stakeholder perspectives onhuman‐elephantconflict and coexistence in India

Abstract

Humans and elephants have shared social, historical and ecological relations for ages. However, their interactions have not been as pleasant as one would like that to be. Although the problems associated with human‐elephant conflict (HEC) are widely known, the increasing rate and extent of conflicts suggest that improved strategies are required to promote their co‐existence. Several measures such as compensation for loss of lives and livelihood, deployment of deterrents, erection of fences to restrict the movements, promotion of conservation education to reduce antagonism, preservation of forests and habitation, etc. have been adopted extensively to mitigate human‐elephant conflict and foster coexistence. Despite persistent efforts, the problem refuses to wither away. Stakeholders' perceptions and attitudes also vary widely across the categories. Many studies show that the impacts of human‐elephant conflict penetrate far deeper than the immediate threats from each other. This paper attempts to understand the plurality of stakeholders' connect with elephants, their perceptions, effectiveness of existing mitigation strategies and future of their coexistence, drawing from empirical data. On the basis of inputs from key informants, focus group discussions among community members and Forest Department officials and field observations from one of the migratory elephant corridors of India, we locate mixed perspectives from various stakeholders and their experiences and responses to human‐elephant conflict which, as we envisage, will go a long way in designing participatory and community‐based mitigation strategies.

Human–elephant interaction: Community perspectives on conflict mitigation and conservation mechanisms

“…The decline in the incidences of bear attacks can be attributed to elephants being around in the area. In addition to the ecological and educational values, entertainment values are registered in amusement and festivity attached to elephants (Nayak & Swain, 2020).…”

“…In contrast, the hidden impacts or indirect problems of HEC (like sleeplessness, increased workload, etc.) are self‐managed (Nayak & Swain, 2020). Similar to cases in the states of West Bengal (Chakraborty & Mondal, 2013) and Uttarakhand (Ogra, 2009; Ogra & Badola, 2008), this study also finds disappointment with existing ex‐gratia provisions.…”

“…Although the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) of the Government of India, which is the apex body responsible for elephant conservation and conflict mitigation in India, has identified crop compensation and ex-gratia schemes as measures for conflict mitigation, these schemes have met with limited success in India (Jadhav & Barua, 2012;Nayak & Swain, 2020;Rangarajan et al, 2010). The existing ex-gratia policy aims to compensate for the loss incurred, pacify the aggrieved communities, and prevent retaliation killing of elephants in pursuance of the Wildlife (Protection) (Odisha) Rules, 1974and Amendment Rules-2011& 2019 in Rule 45.…”

“…Unfavorable perceptions and fear associated with the conflict go far beyond the direct interactions and make mitigation a challenge (Mumby & Plotnik, 2018). However, such perceptions of festivity can be leveraged for conservation (Nayak & Swain, 2020). Therefore, identifying and understanding critical reasons for tolerance would help to work out ways to safeguard elephant‐favoring values to sustain continued tolerance and a positive attitude towards elephants.…”

Can Humans and Elephants Coexist? A Review of the Conflict on Sumatra Island, Indonesia

“…Stepping stones must be free from obstacles (temporal or permanent), such as roads, electric fences, crop cultivations, and buildings [135]. On the farmland close to elephant habitats or corridors, farmers are recommended to grow plants that are disliked by elephants, such as some medicinal plants (ginger, chili, lemongrass, garlic, and onion) and beehive fences (bee feed) that are safe and also economically beneficial for the communities [137,138].…”