General conclusions: towards a coexistence of wildlife and people

From the results obtained in this study a series of conclusions and recommendations for HWC mitigation are drawn (Chapter 7, Fig. 3).

7.4.1 Standardizing and evaluating HWC programmes

The HWC assessment scheme which I used in this study (Chapter 1, Fig. 1) allowed a comparative analysis of HWCs across continents and across species. It has proven to record ecological as well as social and socioeconomic data on damage caused by 19 different wildlife species (Chapter 7, Table 1) in two Asian and two African countries. Data was used for the analysis of different aspects of damage caused by herbivorous species. Analysing data of carnivorous conflicting species will be the subject of future research.

The HWC assessment scheme was used further to evaluate the effectiveness of crop protection measures used. Results revealed that traditional crop protection mechanisms needed to be re-thought as they may be time consuming, ineffective and may even increase

the costs of damage. Only the rigorous evaluation of mitigation strategies will detect failures and false assumptions. Due to the desperate need for solutions from the conservation side, as well as the short term funding of projects, technical solutions are too often developed based on anecdotal knowledge and hope, instead of being based on scientific testing (Gunaryadi et al. 2017). However, improving the assessment scheme for even more thorough evaluation and stronger explanatory powers, needs to be taken into consideration. This could include the assessment of areas without damage, to act as a control in order to determine the success of specific measures for total crop protection.

7.4.2 Exploring the importance of pre-ingestive cues

As most animals are only able to select food items that meet their nutritional needs, they make their decision on whether to consume or not to consume a crop on palatability or acceptability (Heady 1964). The information on the palatability or acceptability of a plant is determined by its pre- and post-ingestive cues. Through feedback and experience, wildlife species have learned which plants to consume or to avoid. The odour of the plant plays an important role for foraging decisions. Not much, however, is known about the odours that support or avoid feeding on different crop types for specific herbivores; this is especially the case for elephants which are strongly olfactory guided in their food choice (Plotnik et al. 2014; Schmitt 2016).

Integrating chemical ecology into the analysis of crop selection by large herbivores may create new insight into their feeding behaviour in agricultural landscapes and form the starting point for the development of innovative and sustainable HWC mitigation strategies.

7.4.3 Participatory land use planning and new ways forward

Designing sustainable solutions for the coexistence of wildlife and people needs to progress from the ad-hoc interventions in order to reduce damage in the long term. Conflict-laden areas need a thorough and truly participatory local planning for the utilization of the land, before a change will become impossible (López-Bao et al. 2017; Treves et al. 2009). As Treves et al.

(2009) summarized, solutions to HWCs need to be feasible, particularly cost-effective, wildlife specific and socio-politically acceptable. Solutions therefore need to be based on sound scientific knowledge, such as the seasonal crop preferences of the respective pest species and the understanding of its foraging behaviour. For elephants, especially, but also for other species such as hippos and rhinos, traditional paths, specific refuges and water bodies need to be taken into consideration when planning sustainable agricultural land use (Guerbois et al. 2012; Songhurst et al. 2015).

Fig. 4: Graphic overview of result and conclusions

Based on the findings of my study, designing less conflict laden areas for people and wildlife could be a new way forward. Areas close to wildlife habitats could be used for the cultivation of MAPs as cash crops, which are unattractive or at least less attractive to elephants and probably to other species. Combined with strategic cohesive guarding, the trade-off between the benefit wildlife species could gain through feeding on crops and the perceived risk would be shifted to an uneconomic proportion and therewith reduce the probability of wildlife entering farmland. Additionally, the cultivation of depredation-prone crops need to be shifted further away from these wildlife habitats, taking into consideration that they will always be attractive lures (Goswami et al. 2015). Furthermore, ecologically important areas, such as corridors or access to water, need to be retained, to allow the undisturbed movement of wildlife species; this may include putting a halt to the agricultural invasion of ecologically important wetlands (Kanga et al. 2012). Such a land-use approach could turn the cost intensive fight against wildlife into a well-adapted and economically sustainable land use.

7.4.4 Considering the human dimension in HWCs

This study had a strong focus on understanding the determinants for wildlife species entering agricultural, rural or even exurban areas and causing damage to the people’s economy. The damage wildlife species cause to people living in poverty will reduce their tolerance towards these species and their protection, especially if they are not compensated or supported in another way. Unfortunately, the reciprocal assumption that a decrease in damage will automatically increase the tolerance for wildlife species, is however not perfectly correct (Dickman 2010). People’s attitudes are shaped by multiple factors, such as psychological and cultural sentiment, political and legal history, as well as social norms (Hogberg et al. 2015;

Liordos et al. 2017; Williams et al. 2002). If HWCs are deep-rooted, including deeply held values, high economic relevance and power imbalances, decreasing the level of damage by wildlife species will not achieve a transformation (Madden and McQuinn 2014). In the case of deep-rooted conflicts, the participation of those being negatively affected by wildlife species will be difficult to achieve, and short-term technical solutions will most likely fail. For this reason the analysis of social and political factors is highly important, before the process of HWC mitigation starts. The level of conflict needs to be analysed and the appropriate strategy for conflict resolution needs to be chosen.

The empowerment of local people and the creation of their ownership over resources are pivotal within such a process (Lindsey et al. 2013). This must co-exist with building the

capacity of local communities to learn about the ecological complexity in their natural and rural environment. Furthermore, policy reforms in the patterns of ownership, new incentives and protective regulations as well as the removal of destructive subsidies need to be seriously taken into consideration (Pretty 2002). Such truly participatory approaches, respecting local culture and history, building on scientific as well as traditional knowledge and taking into consideration the principles of ecologic, economic and social sustainability, bear the potential to create a peaceful coexistence for people and wildlife for future generations.