On its way to reverse the decline in tiger populations, Nepal has made remarkable progress, increasing tiger numbers by 63 percent since 2009. Recent surveys have established that tigers are found in 12 of the 14 districts in Tarai Arc Landscape (extending from Parsa Wildlife reserve to Shuklaphanta Wildlife reserve).
This scenario adds to the challenges for future conservation, since landscape is under increasing pressure from poverty, encroachment, human population rise, and infrastructure development, and aggravated by uncertainties of climate change. [break]
Human Wildlife conflict
Most protected areas in Nepal are too small to maintain viable populations of larger mammals. Both biodiversity and its threats move freely across boundaries. Thus, expanding habitable areas and connecting protected areas through buffer zones and biological corridors is inevitable.
Nationalgeographic.com
This fulfils communities’ increasing resource demands and provides additional habitable areas for wildlife. This also puts large wildlife in direct confrontation with surrounding communities. Human wildlife conflict (HWC) is a crucial issue in Nepal, as it results in loss of lives and property, and increases risks to food security and livelihood. In the long term it can increase poverty and reduce community support for conservation.
For species like tigers which are highly sensitive to human disturbances around habitats, maintenance of core areas is of utmost importance. There has been a rapid increase in the number of humans killed by tigers, from an average of 1.2 persons/year before 1998 to 7.2 persons/year between 1998-2006 after forest restoration in buffer zones.
It is likely to increase with both tiger and human populations on the rise. Land-use change has been identified as a major driver of HWC in Nepal. As habitats are fragmented by villages and fields surrounding the parks, invasion of cropped fields and villages is high. Effective land-use planning that reduces fragmentation will have the greatest impact on reducing such conflicts.
Although many projects attempting to incorporate local livelihood enhancement with biodiversity conservation have failed, the ones that have succeeded are exemplary. For conservationists who consider ecotourism a tool for community participation and social development, the major challenge is that lucrative ecotourism scenarios are exploited by outsiders who can reduce benefits to locals.
Unless ecotourism can put adequate money into local communities, it cannot change local attitudes to protected areas. At the same time, integrated conservation and development projects have proven to be highly expensive and slow to start with, and tend to lose focus on conservation. It is important to realize that human support depends on economic opportunities to a great extent.
Poaching
When alternative income opportunities are lacking, individuals can pursue poaching. Poaching is a major challenge, as it can drive species to local extinction. Nepal is a transit point for illegal wildlife trade. The most vulnerable species are tigers and rhinos that have a high price in international market, which drives local poaching. At the local level, poaching occurs for two major purposes: for the international market remote controlled by powerful elites, and for local consumption, usually of smaller species like deer, driven by social practices.
Central to both forms of poaching is the monetary benefit compared to risks. Due to their severe poverty, the price tag on each shooting outweighs the punishments for shooters. This is also the reason why trained poachers can easily use them.
Poor local shooters are simply the face, and it is important to detach the shooters from poachers, because highly placed poachers will never enter unknown territory. We must understand that human behavior regarding conservation is regulated by their existing livelihood strategies, impact of wildlife conservation on them, and possible compensation for their losses. The key to future conservation will be that local communities perceive conservation as a part of their livelihood strategy rather than as a threat.
Studying ‘Anthromes’
An unorthodox approach to biodiversity conservation is inevitable. Contrary to the initial definition of ecology, we now need to analyze ‘anthromes’, human systems with natural ecosystems embedded in them. ‘Pristine’ ecosystems are simply obsolete, as they have been modified through centuries by humans. Conventionally, ecologists study nature as an isolated unit, which is unrealistic. In real world, socio-economic and political factors play a much bigger role.
What ecologists find, believe and want may never be achievable. Further, most studies assessing success or failure of integrated conservation and development projects encompass socio-economic development of communities with limited focus on human wildlife conflict and poaching. The weakest component of such studies is lack of framework and resource to assess the impact on endangered species and habitat conservation. It is crucial to measure impacts of conservation with the framework wherein the means is community development, and end is biodiversity conservation.
An irony with research in conservation is that sociologists and ecologists do not seem to acknowledge each other’s value. There are a couple reasons why social research is overlooked; first because it takes a long time, whereas conservation moves rapidly. Second, in cases of resource constraints, ecological studies always prevail over social research because conservation agencies are dominated by ecologists. But as societies are complex, social research is the key to conservation success.
Climate change
Climate change is an age old phenomenon. Numerous species have survived bizarre changes with relatively insignificant loss of biodiversity. The key factor today is human modification of landscapes critical for wildlife. Species respond to climate change impacts at their individual pace. Ecosystems do not respond to climate change impacts in linear manner as shown by complicated computer models. It will segregate into bits and pieces, and it cannot be foreseen.
This will lead to greater pressure on biodiversity and protected areas. The impacts of climate change at micro level on habitats and livelihoods of communities have not been studied. At most, cases have been generalized. In a situation where both climate change predictions and its impact on species are uncertain, setting priorities for biodiversity conservation is challenging. The only means to tackle the unforeseen is to maintain flexibility and diversity, as flexible and diverse systems are the most resilient.
Reloading conservation
Biodiversity conservation is complex and localized when human intervention is high. Boundaries are rapidly fading, and scattered areas need focus. The ecosystems, biodiversity therein, its products, values and services to surrounding communities differ widely.
The implications are that conservation and management strategies will vary across landscapes. Communities are not homogenous, and this heterogeneity must be acknowledged and understood to the lowest possible level. Success and failures of a strategy cannot be extrapolated across diverse human-dominated landscapes as blueprint solutions. Also, conventional natural resource based rural livelihoods are rapidly changing, and it has implications on community participation.
Addressing HWC through identifying people losing at the cost of biodiversity conservation is crucial. Funding in this sector will need to go up significantly in the future, as the entire sector in underfunded. Furthermore, in a rapidly changing context, it is not enough to support locals for mere subsistence, but conservation must create additional economic benefits. We should realize that it is virtually impossible to create a perfect balance between socio-economic development and conservation in a developing nation like Nepal.
The linkages between poverty, increasing resource scarcity, and unimpeded biodiversity loss should be acknowledged. This can have a positive outcome for both poverty reduction and conservation when such impoverished areas overlap with degraded ecosystems and thus facilitate in identification of “elusive, yet possible, win-win solutions.”
The author has a Masters in Forest and Nature Conservation and works with environment and society
karnali77@gmail.com
Related story
Redefining neutrality
