1

Economics of Man-Animal Conflict: A Cost-Benefit Analysis

Depletion of wildlife species has gone hand in hand with the progress of cultivation. There are instances of three kinds of extinction - natural extinction which is way of nature to give rise to more advanced forms of life as the process of evolution (natural selection), second as a cause of habitat destruction for the spread of urban areas, construction of roads, railways and dams and agricultural and industrial operations. The third one is due to uncontrolled hunting and poaching. One of the most important agendas of today’s ecological crisis is the conservation of wild animals, as many of them occupy a significant position in the functioning of natural ecosystems. Any alteration of one species affects all the other species too, thus distributing the stability of ecosystems. Also the human population cannot sustain without cultivating the stock of wild species. The wildlife species is a rich resource of genes for breeding, biotechnology etc. It is important for aesthetic and recreational values too.

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 coexistence is not possible as it was like prey-predator relations in earlier days. But man-animal conflict in true sense has come up now due to the fact that competition occurs between them for the availability of common resource, which are short in supply (land, food, water). In spite of the legal, environmental and socio-economic measures man-animal conflict is almost a regular phenomenon in and around most of the protected areas in India, and this conflict is becoming a hindrance to wildlife conservation.

From one side the source of conflict is the damage is due to them by wild animals. On the other hand, the source of this conflict is the restriction on the local people to access forest resources. Law protects wild animals and they increase in numbers consequently. The outcome is the direct suffering of local people from incidents of break-in of growing animal population in search of food, space and mates causing loss in crops, house, human death etc. The role of government is to mitigate these conflicts through various precautionary measures. All protected areas legislation, in general, represents a reduction or elimination, of local human access to the resources therein. In post independence era (1950-1970), there were widespread killing of wildlife. But due to internal and external pressure it was felt necessary during 1970s’ to begin a new era in wildlife conservation in India. As a result Wildlife Protection Act was formulated in 1972 and many national parks, tiger reserves and sanctuaries were established. But during 1980’s there arose serious problems in managing these areas specially in solving complexities arose among discontent villagers around the protected areas. Over 3 million humans reside within protected areas, and several million more in their adjacent areas (Kothari, Singh and Suri, 1995). Local communities have historically met various livelihood requirements from these forests and grasslands, including grazing, fuel wood, herbs and medicinal plants, wild animals, bark, leaves, fruits and honey. Ban on such products and attempt to relocate entire villages outside national parks had caused tension between the functionaries of the government and the users of these resources.

Human-wildlife conflict became inevitable because there were several incidents of moving out of numerous wild animal population in search of food, space and mates: causing loss in crops, lifting of cattle, human deaths etc. But state support was difficult causing outright hostilities. A survey in mid eighties indicated a conservative total of 629 animal attacks on humans including 485 fatalities during the period 1970 and 1984, (Kothari, 1989)

There has been a growing recognition of the difficulties associated with implementing such unpopular conservation policies and strategies. So over past decade, in an increasing push nationally and internationally, new policies have emerged. These are mostly oriented towards involvement of resident people in the management of local resources, i.e., participatory policies. The Indian experiment with Joint Forest Management (JFM), now in 22 states across the country, has received acclaim. Although there are still problems with the functioning of Forest Protection Committees, and the overall structuring of the program, there has certainly been a radical shift in the manner in which village forests are now expected to be managed.

In this context, this paper is an honest attempt to make a quantitative analysis to suggest an appropriate rational way to minimize the above mentioned problems. To elaborate and arrive at some policy prescriptions, some tools of Cost-Benefit Analysis have been used. In this study, we have tried to demonstrate that there are serious social and ecological problems with the exclusionary approach. Ban on human resource use is unnecessary within the wildlife sanctuaries. It has been shown by giving example of case study in Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary, West Bengal India, that effective conservation measures do not call for rampart human resource use but mere inclusive human needs. It also ensures sustainability of Indian wildlife both from economic and ecological point of view.

It is estimated that the normal rate of species extinction is at about 0.000009 per cent per year (Field, 1997). However, at several times in the geological past, this rate was very high as a result of natural causes (viz., the period when the dinosaurs extinct). 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 the species goes either extinct or are threatened because of either overexploitation or habitat destruction. In all 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. The number of threatened species of mammals, birds and higher plants in India is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Biodiversity in India

Species / Number of species / Threatened species
Mammals / 316 / 40
Birds / 1219 / 71
Higher plants / 15000 / 1256

Source: World Development Indicators, World Bank, 1998

Although 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 plants and animals. The human population cannot sustain without cultivating the stock of wild species of plants and animals. This dependence is in a variety of ways such as agriculture, animal husbandry, biotechnology, etc. (viz. through traditional plant and animal breeding, genetic materials are transferred from wild species of plants and animals into cultivated ones).

Table 2. Nationally protected areas

Countries / Protected areas
(thousand sq. km.) / Percent of total land area
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.

Conservation of biodiversity does not mean preservation of individual species, since biodiversity is not a matter of a single species but a relationship among a large number of species. In fact, conservation of biodiversity 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 first 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 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 2. Since the idea of protected areas 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.

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, importance is now being attached to biodiversity by environmental groups, political decision makers, economists, and ordinary people alike. 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 (Johnson, 1993). 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 utilisation 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. Among them one was to establish a system of protected areas, and to develop guidelines for the selection, establishment and management of those protected areas.

In the case of wildlife conservation, the problem of wildlife is not how we shall handle the animals. The real problem is human management. Here the most significant challenge is to develop a means for classifying and measuring people's values of wildlife. There has been much recent interest in the topic of services by wildlife habitat and their value to society. Values toward wildlife and the natural environment have been systematically and empirically studied across various wildlife habitats in the world. The present work is a review of such studies, and also an exercise for valuation of wildlife in a Wildlife Sanctuary in India.

This study had been undertaken in Jaldapara wildlife sanctuary (JWLS), West Bengal, India, comprising of 3 forest and 32 fringe villages. For the purpose of this study 8 fringe and 2 forest villages were selected, and from each village 35 households were chosen using random sampling techniques. In the next section we will briefly discuss the methodology used for this study.

CONTINGENT VALUATION METHOD

The Contingent Valuation Method enables economic values to be estimated directly for a wide range of commodities not traded in the market (Hanley, Shogren and White, 1999). Any CVM exercise can be split into five stages:

Stage 1 involves setting up of a hypothetical market for the environmental goods in question (here the use and non-use value of wildlife and its habitat). A sample is drawn from the relevant population in the hypothetical market. Then a survey is conducted among the individuals in the sample.

Stage 2 consists of asking the respondents to state their WTP for the increase in environmental quality (here 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.

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. Two 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). Depending upon their response, they are then presented with higher and higher amounts until their maximum WTP is reached.

It has been observed that DC format (i.e., the last one) has a number of advantages over others. In open-ended questions, respondents have often found it difficult to answer, specially when they have no prior experience of trading with the commodity in question. Moreover, environmental goods and services are more often than not 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 which may direct the respondents away from their value 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. In this work, DC format was adopted to avoid biased estimate of value of wildlife. Although, an additional question regarding the respondents’ willingness to voluntarily contribute the maximum amount towards wildlife conservation was included in the survey schedule. The estimated bid curve based on this WTP in the open-ended question was not at all significant. Details of the results are shown in the following sections.

JALDAPARA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY

In India, we experience depletion of our wildlife due to overexploitation of national ecosystems and resources to meet the needs of an ever-increasing human population. Habitat destruction poses the most serious threat to the survival of wildlife. Since independence, India has accorded high priority to 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 supports and conservation education.

Today, India has a wide network of 69 national parks and 392 sanctuaries located in different parts of the country and covering about 4 per cent of the country’s total geographical area. Moreover, there are 21 tiger reserves distributed throughout the country and covering a forest area of over 30,497 sq. km. India has a very rich and varied fauna. There are about 75000 species of animals, of which 340 species are mammals, 1,200 birds, 420 reptiles, 140 amphibians, 2,000 fishes, 50,000 insects, 4,000 molluscs and several other species of invertebrates.

Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (JWLS) in West Bengal state has been placed on the wildlife map of India because of the pleasure of the great Indian one horned Rhinoceros. It also contains grassland and a small population of one-horned rhinos. JWLS is situated between the latitudes of 250 58” and 270 45” North and longitudes of 890 08” and 890 55” in the East. Total area of the sanctuary at present stands at 216.51 sq. km., comprising 12 blocks and 46 compartments. JWLS forms the general reserve for the great Indian one-horned rhinoceros. The extinction of such species can be avoided through proper management and adequate protection measures. According to 1991 Census there are 41 rhinos (2% of global population) now in this sanctuary (Wildlife Circle, West Bengal, 1997). The Sanctuary gives protection to many types of animal species to avoid extinction; such species are given in Table 3 with their scientific names.

Table 3. Animal species in Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary

Species / Scientific Name
Rhinoceros / Rhinoceros 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 / Evpodotis bengalensis
Python / Python reticulatus
Indian Pangolin / Manis erassi caudata

JWLS is also very rich in wild flora. It contains a total of 585 identified species and 111 families. Out of them 71 are grass species, 19 are orchid species and 47 are endangered plant species (29 genera), which are of conservation importance. Moreover, it contains many pleridophytes, Bryophytes, Algae, Fungi and Lichens. Jaldapara 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 famous internationally for the presence of savannah grassland which is the home of the great Indian one-horned rhinoceros. These grasslands are the only remnants left inside the protected areas in West Bengal.