1、First editionIUCN SSC guidelineson human-wildlife confictand coexistence INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE IUCN is a membership Union uniquely composed of both government and civil society organisations.It provides public,private and non-governmental organisations with the knowledge and

2、 tools that enable human progress,economic development and nature conservation to take place together.About IUCNwww.iucn.orghttps:/ in 1948,IUCN is now the worlds largest and most diverse environmental network,harnessing the knowledge,resources and reach of more than 1,400 Member organisations and a

3、round 15,000 experts.It is a leading provider of conservation data,assessments and analysis.Its broad membership enables IUCN to fill the role of incubator and trusted repository of best practices,tools and international standards.IUCN provides a neutral space in which diverse stakeholders including

4、 governments,NGOs,scientists,businesses,local communities,Indigenous peoples organisations and others can work together to forge and implement solutions to environmental challenges and achieve sustainable development.Working with many partners and supporters,IUCN implements a large and diverse portf

5、olio of conservation projects worldwide.Combining the latest science with the traditional knowledge of local communities,these projects work to reverse habitat loss,restore ecosystems and improve peoples well-being.Unsplash/Michael BaccinFirst editionIUCN SSC guidelineson human-wildlife confictand c

6、oexistence The designation of geographical entities in this book,and the presentation of the material,do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country,territory,or area,or of its authorities,or concerning the delimitation of its fro

7、ntiers or boundaries.The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN.IUCN is pleased to acknowledge the support of its Framework Partners who provide core funding:Ministry of Foreign Affairs,Denmark;Ministry for Foreign Affairs,Finland;Government of France and the Fr

8、ench Development Agency(AFD);Ministry of Environment,Republic of Korea;Ministry of the Environment,Climate and Sustainable Development,Grand Duchy of Luxembourg;the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation(Norad);the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency(Sida);the Swiss Agency for

9、 Development and Cooperation(SDC)and the United States Department of State.This publication has been made possible through funding from Elephant Family and the Luc Hoffmann Institute.Published by:Produced by:Copyright:Recommended citation:ISBN:DOI:Cover photo:IUCN,Gland,SwitzerlandIUCN SSC Human-Wil

10、dlife Conflict&Coexistence Specialist Group 2023 IUCN,International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural ResourcesReproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is

11、fully acknowledged.Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder.IUCN(2023).IUCN SSC guidelines on human-wildlife conflict and coexistence.First edition.Gland,Switzerland:IUCN978-2-8317-2234-4(PDF)https

12、:/doi.org/10.2305/YGIK2927James StevensPRVRT Creative StudioLayout by:028323741iiiContentsExecutive summaryList of contributorsAcknowledgementsAbout the IUCN SSC Human-Wildlife Conflict&Coexistence Specialist GroupAbout these GuidelinesIntroductionAlexandra Zimmermann,Simon Pooley,John Li

13、nnell,Jenny A.Glikman,Silvio Marchini,Catherine Hill&Camilla SandstrmPrinciplesGood practice checklistCase studies and further resources1.Levels of conflict over wildlifeAlexandra Zimmermann&Brian McQuinn2.The role of the conservationistCatherine Hill,Vidya Athreya,John D.C.Linnell,Brian McQuinn,Ste

14、phen Redpath,Juliette Young&Alexandra Zimmermann3.Interventions:to act or not to act?Simon Hedges&Joshua M.Plotnik4.Avoiding unintended consequencesJames Stevens,Simon Hedges&Juliette Young5.Assessing the impacts of conflictJohn D.C.Linnell,Gladman Thondhlana&Simon Hedges6.Natural drivers of human-w

15、ildlife conflictMayukh Chatterjee,James Stevens&Sugoto Royviixxixiixiv48556268748087949851317.Animal behaviour8.Attitudes,tolerance and human behaviour9.Culture and wildlife10.How histories shape interactions11.Livelihoods,poverty and well-being12.Governing human-wildlife conflicts13.Work

16、ing with stakeholders and communities14.Traditional ecological knowledge15.Planning and theory of change16.Dialogue:a process for conflict resolution17.Resolving conflicts between people18.Engaging with the media and social media19.Social science research20.Ecological researchJoshua M.Plotnik,Robbie

17、 Ball,Matthew S.Rudolph,Simon Pooley,James Stevens,Chloe Inskip&Richard HoareSilvio Marchini,Jenny A.Glikman,Michael Manfredo&Alexandra ZimmermannCatherine Hill,Vidya Athreya,Jenny A.Glikman,John D.C.Linnell&Simon PooleySimon Pooley,Catherine Hill&John LinnellDilys Roe,Gladman Thondhlana,Catherine H

18、ill&Sugoto RoyCamilla Sandstrm&Elaine Lan Yin HsiaoJuliette C.Young,Jenny A.Glikman,Beatrice Frank,Simon Hedges,Kate Hill&Rachel HoffmannVidya Athreya,Dhee,John D.C.Linnell,Sahil Nijawan&Juliette YoungSilvio Marchini,Jenny A.Glikman,Sugoto Roy,Simon Hedges&Alexandra ZimmermannBrian McQuinn,Alexandra

19、 Zimmermann,James Stevens&Gladman ThondhlanaAlexandra Zimmermann&Brian McQuinnJenny A.Glikman,Silvio Marchini,Niki Rust,Simon Pooley,Juliette Young&Catherine HillVirat Singh,Vidya Athreya,Chloe Inskip,Alexandra Zimmermann&Ranjeet JadhavivMayukh Chatterjee,James Stevens&Sugoto Roy21.Planning across l

20、andscapes22.Political ecology of wildlife23.Law and human-wildlife conflict24.Policy instruments25.Animal capture and translocation26.Lethal control tools27.Preventing damage by wildlife28.Response teams29.Social marketing and behaviour change30.Economic incentives31.Compensation and insurance32.Eva

21、luating interventionsAfterwordReferences608214216Anna Songhurst,James Stevens,Michael Manfredo&Graham McCullochElaine Lan Yin Hsiao,Jared Margulies&Francis MassArie Trouwborst,John Linnell&Camilla SandstrmCamilla Sandstrm&Amy DickmanRichard Hoare,John D.C.Linnell&Vid

22、ya AthreyaSugoto Roy,James Stevens,Amy Dickman,Simon Pooley,Richard Hoare,Simon Hedges,John D.C.Linnell,Virat Singh&Piero GenovesiJames Stevens&Simon HedgesSugoto Roy,Mayukh Chatterjee,Chloe Inskip,Rachel Hoffmann,Piero Genovesi&Claudio GroffDiogo Verssimo,Silvio Marchini,Jenny A.Glikman,Meredith Go

23、re,Paul Butler&Brooke TullyAmy Dickman,Jose Gonzalez-Maya,Vidya Athreya,John D.C.Linnell,Simon Hedges,Dilys Roe&James StevensJames Stevens,Paul Steele,Barbara Chesire,Nurzhafarina Othman,Betty Chebet&Zipporah MuchokiSalisha Chandra,Diogo Verssimo,Silvio Marchini,Simon Hedges,zgn Emre Can&Jenny A.Gli

24、kmanvExecutive summaryWildlife can pose a direct threat to the safety,livelihood and well-being of people.Retaliation against the species blamed often ensues,leading to conflict between groups of people about what should be done to resolve the situation.Human-wildlife conflicts also negatively affec

25、t communities whose support for,and benefit from,wider conservation goals is easily eroded by recurring negative interactions with species close to their lands,fields and homes.Effective and sustainable methods to mitigate and manage these situations are elusive or are often not implemented in a soc

26、ially or economically sustainable way.Each situation is different,with its own history and unique complications,limiting the transferability of methods for reducing the impacts of species as well as peoples behaviour.Human-wildlife conflicts involve recurring interactions between people and wildlife

27、 yet are always underpinned by social conflicts between groups of people.The species involved may include a wide range of terrestrial and aquatic species from large cats,bears,elephants,deer,primates,sharks,seals,crocodilians,snakes,rhinos and otters,to invertebrates and plants and these can be of v

28、arying degrees of conservation concern.Typically,human-wildlife conflict cases involving threatened,iconic or well-known species attract the most attention,and in turn the highest volume of voices,opinions,arguments or media coverage.For example,although venomous snakes kill far more people each yea

29、r in India than do Asian elephants,the latter inevitably tend to gather disproportionately more attention.These Guidelines are not limited to any region or species or human groups,but rather try to focus on principles and processes that apply across situations.Important in understanding the nature o

30、f human-wildlife conflict are five key considerations:Interventions that focus only on reducing damage are not transferable from one case to another.Poorly informed human-wildlife conflict mitigation attempts can exacerbate the situation.Context awareness and understanding of social and political ba

31、ckgrounds are crucial.Conflict mitigation and damage reduction interventions must be designed and managed collaboratively.Long-term solutions must incorporate landscape-scale ecological,economic and socio-political planning.These Guidelines focus in particular on how to resolve or manage human-wildl

32、ife conflict,but with coexistence in mind.Coexistence is not simply the opposite,or absence,of conflict.At the most basic level,coexistence suggests that at some level a choice is being made by humans to share landscapes and natural resources with wildlife in sustainable ways.It follows,therefore,th

33、at in order to do so,coexistence generally also requires agreement or at very least,cooperation between different groups of people about the wildlife in question.The Guidelines provide the crucial foundations and principles for good practice.They have been developed by an interdisciplinary team of e

34、xperts from the IUCN SSC Human-Wildlife Conflict&Coexistence Specialist Group,with chapters compiled by 50 contributors and written for conservation practitioners,community leaders,decision makers,researchers,government officers and other interested parties.1.2.3.4.5.IUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WIL

35、DLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCEvi1.Do no harmFirst covered is the importance of identifying the level of conflict and reflecting on ones own role in the given human-wildlife conflict situation(Chapters 1 and 2).This needs to be followed by an assessment of whether any intervention is advisable based

36、on the best-available information about physical and social contexts,while giving careful consideration to possible unintended consequences(Chapters 3 and 4).2.Understand issues and contextIn order to assist the reader in the assessment of a human-wildlife conflict situation,we provide three section

37、s on how to assess the impacts of wildlife,the natural and ecological drivers of these,and how to consider the species behaviour in this situation(Chapters 5,6 and 7).This is followed by five chapters of guidance on how to consider the underlying social,cultural,historical and political contexts.Thi

38、s requires an understanding of attitudes,tolerance,and human behaviour,cultural influences,histories,livelihoods and well-being,and different forms of governance related to human-wildlife conflicts(Chapters 8,9,10,11 and 12).3.Work togetherCollaboration and co-management are critical in every human-

39、wildlife conflict and coexistence initiative.The next section brings into focus the importance of working with stakeholders and communities,the integration(where relevant)of traditional knowledge and how to achieve good planning and co-designed theory of change(Chapters 13,14 and 15).Alongside this

40、we recommend multi-disciplinary teams across sectors and use established cooperation approaches to support this.These next chapters explain how to develop multi-stakeholder dialogues,how to resolve conflicts between groups of people and how to work constructively with the media on these complex issu

41、es(Chapters 16,17 and 18).4.Integrate science and policyActions to address human-wildlife conflict should be based on evidence and sound science.This section first covers the essentials of social research and ecological research methods for human-wildlife conflict assessment and monitoring,and how t

42、o consider and plan at landscape scales(Chapters 19,20 and 21).We then cover key aspects of governance and policy integration via chapters on the role of laws,policy instruments,and political ecology in human-wildlife conflict(Chapter 22,23 and 24).5.Enable sustainable pathwaysThis section looks at

43、the main categories of intervention in human-wildlife conflict mitigation in terms of reducing or managing the impacts of wildlife on people or peoples behaviours in human-wildlife conflict situations.This includes chapters explaining when(or when not)to consider certain approaches,including an over

44、view of damage-prevention methods,animal capture and These Guidelines are centred around foundational Principles of understanding and managing human-wildlife conflicts:(1)Do no harm,(2)Understand issues and context,(3)Work together,(4)Integrate science and policy and(5)Enable sustainable pathways.Th

45、ese are mirrored in a Good Practice Checklist,containing 10 key questions,which in turn are elaborated across 32 short chapters.We recommend the user to keep the Principles and the Good Practice Checklist as a reference,and consult chapters as needed and where relevant for given contexts and situati

46、ons.In summary,the sections cover the following:viiIUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCEtranslocation,lethal control and response teams(Chapters 25,26,27 and 28).Finally,we consider costs and cost-offsetting strategies,as well as exit strategies to avoid social,financial or

47、technical dependence.These last chapters cover strategies for human behaviour change and guidance for economic incentive approaches,compensation and insurance,and how to evaluate overall progress and sustainability(Chapters 29,30,31 and 32).Human-wildlife coexistence is achievable through context-ap

48、propriate and well-informed collaborations of actors arriving at a way forward that is acceptable to those most directly involved.Some human-wildlife conflicts involve situations where lives and livelihoods are at serious risk,requiring urgent attention that cannot wait for the outcomes of research

49、or mediation dialogues.In emergency cases,there may be no other option than to implement imperfectly informed damage control measures as soon as possible.However,these can and should be swiftly followed by the development of long-term,collaborative and holistic plans for conflict management.For huma

50、n-wildlife coexistence to be possible,continuous dialogue is needed.Because of this,human-wildlife conflict is a global challenge for biodiversity conservation,and also an opportunity,a vehicle and subject for focused cooperation and working together towards the vision of the UN Convention on Biolog

51、ical Diversitys Global Biodiversity Framework,in which humanity lives in harmony with nature and in which wildlife and other living species are protected.Pixabay/nicnicnic78IUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCEviiiIUCN SSC Human-Wildlife Conflict&Coexistence Specialist Group

52、(Chair),and University of Oxford,Oxford,UKAlexandra ZimmermannList of contributorsThese Guidelines were written by the members of the IUCN SSC Human-Wildlife Conflict&Coexistence Specialist Group(HWCCSG)and external co-authors,and edited by Alexandra Zimmermann,Chloe Inskip and James Stevens.Wildlif

53、e Conservation Research Unit,University of Oxford,Oxford,UKAmy DickmanEcoexist Trust,Maun,BotswanaAnna SonghurstTilburg University,Tilburg,Netherlands,and North-West University,Potchefstroom,South AfricaArie TrouwborstAB Consultants,Nairobi,KenyaBarbara ChesireWWF Canada,Victoria,CanadaBeatrice Fran

54、kAB Consultants,Nairobi,KenyaBetty ChebetUniversity of Regina,Saskatchewan,CanadaBrian McQuinnBrooke Tully,LLC,Livingston Manor,USABrooke TullyUme University,Ume,SwedenCamilla SandstrmOxford Brookes University,Oxford,UKCatherine HillIUCN SSC Human-Wildlife Conflict&Coexistence Specialist Group(Edito

55、rial Officer),and Independent Consultant,Herne Bay,UKChloe InskipTrento,ItalyClaudio GroffWildlife Conservation Society-India,Bengaluru,IndiaDheeInternational Institute for Environment and Development(IIED),Cambridge,UKDilys RoeUniversity of Oxford,Oxford,UKDiogo VerssimoKent State University,School

56、 of Peace and Conflict Studies,Kent,USAElaine Lan Yin HsiaoNorthumbria University,Department of Geography and Environmental Science,Newcastle,UKFrancis MasseRhodes University,Grahamstown,South AfricaGladman ThondhlanaEcoexist Trust,Maun,BotswanaGraham McCullochIUCN SSC Human-Wildlife Conflict&Coexis

57、tence Specialist Group(Programme Officer),Cambridge,UKJames StevensUniversity of Alabama,Department of Geography,Tuscaloosa,USAJared MarguilesInstituto de Estudios Sociales Avanzados IESA-CSICJenny A.GlikmanNorwegian Institute for Nature Research,Trondheim,Norway,and Inland Norway University of Appl

58、ied Sciences,Evenstad,NorwayJohn D.C.LinnellProCAT Colombia/Internacional,and Universidad Autnoma Metropolitana,Lerma,MexicoJose Gonzalez-MayaHunter College and Graduate Center,City University of New York,New York,USAJoshua M.PlotnikINRAE,Institut Agro,Universit de Bourgogne Franche-Comt,Dijon,Franc

59、eJuliette YoungHunter College and Graduate Center,City University of New York,New York,USAMatthew S.RudolphNorth of England Zoological Society(Chester Zoo),Chester,UKMayukh ChatterjeeUniversity of Maryland,College Park,USAMeredith GoreixIUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCEC

60、olorado State University,Fort Collins,Colorado,USAMichael ManfredoThe Climate Change Committee,London,UKNiki RustUniversiti Malaysia Sabah,Kota Kinabalu,MalaysiaNurzhafarina OthmanAnkara University,Ankara,Trkiyezgn Emre Canformerly Rare,Alington,USAPaul ButlerInternational Institute for Environment

61、and Development(IIED),London,UKPaul SteeleISPRA,Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research,Rome,Italy Piero GenovesiIUCN SSC Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group,Cambridge,UKRachel HoffmannMidDay,Mumbai,IndiaRanjeet JadhavIndependent Consultant,African wildlife,Harare,Zi

62、mbabweRichard HoareHunter College and Graduate Center,City University of New York,New York,USARobbie BallMaliasili Africa,Nairobi,KenyaSalisha ChandraESALQ,University of So Paulo,Piracicaba,BrazilSilvio MarchiniZoological Society of London(ZSL),London,UKSimon HedgesBirkbeck College,University of Lon

63、don,London,UKSimon PooleyIUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group,Ittigen,Switzerland Sugoto Royformerly Aberdeen University,Aberdeen,UKStephen RedpathWildlife Conservation Society-India,Bengaluru,IndiaVidya AthreyaAsar,Mumbai,IndiaVirat A SinghAB Consultants,Nairobi,KenyaZipporah MuchokiIUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON

64、 HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCExAcknowledgementsThese Guidelines were developed by the members of the IUCN SSC Human-Wildlife Conflict&Coexistence Specialist Group(HWCCSG)and associates who generously gave their time voluntarily to this initiative,writing,editing and reviewing the manuscrip

65、t.We thank the Luc Hoffmann Institute,Chester Zoo,Elephant Family and Re:wild for their financial support and the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit(WildCRU)of the University of Oxford for hosting the Specialist Group.We would like to thank our two external peer reviewers Stephanie Dolrenry and Nun

66、o Negres Soares who provided helpful input into the final draft,Jon Paul Rodrguez,Sarina van der Ploeg,and the IUCN Editorial Board for their support,quality assurance and support through the publications process,Patrick Fox for copyediting the manuscript and Rodrigo Ribeiro of PRVRT Creative Studio

67、 for the design of the publication.We are also grateful to the newest members of the HWCCSG Ronit Amit,Hollie Booth,James Butler,Ahimsa Campos-Arceiz,Susan Canney,Mariana Catapani,Rogrio Cunha de Paula,Adam T.Ford,Hannes J.Knig,Greta Francesca Iori,Sahil Nijhawan,Loki Osborn,Ameyali Ramos,Koustubh S

68、harma,Aleksandr Traje,Kim Wolfenden,Ee Phin Wong and Santiago Zuluaga for their support and help in the final stages of completion.xiIUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCEAbout the IUCN SSC Human-WildlifeConflict&Coexistence Specialist GroupThe IUCN SSC Human-Wildlife Conflic

69、t&Coexistence Specialist Group(HWCCSG)is an interdisciplinary advisory group that aims to support professionals working on human-wildlife conflict.The HWCCSG(formerly the Human-Wildlife Conflict Task Force,HWCTF)was established in 2016 as an IUCN SSC Task Force with the aim of fostering links betwee

70、n policy,science and communities,and assimilating knowledge and capacity for human-wildlife conflict management.In 2022 it was granted full IUCN SSC Specialist Group status.The HWCCSGs objectives to date have been to:The HWCCSG endeavours to work towards the following outcomes:Its ambition is that w

71、here animals pose a direct and recurring threat to the livelihoods or safety of people,efforts to manage the situation are pursued through well-informed,holistic and collaborative processes that take into account underlying social,cultural and economic contexts.build capacity by developing technical

72、 or framework guidance materials,training workshops and learning platforms.act as an advisory body on matters of human-wildlife conflict that can provide a platform for the exchange of best practice;facilitate interdisciplinary approaches to human-wildlife conflict mitigation by encouraging the coll

73、aboration of experts from many different fields;and3.1.2.Increase understanding and awareness of the complexities of conflict and coexistence.Facilitate more collaboration between practitioners,policy makers,scientists and the community.Catalyse more resources and effort committed to good human-wild

74、life conflict management.Encourage preventative mitigation of emerging human-wildlife conflicts.Integrate effective policies for human-wildlife conflict and coexistence into major biodiversity and development agendas.IUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCExiiIUCN Human-Wildlif

75、e Conflict&Coexistence Resource LibraryIUCN SSC Position Statement on the Management of Human-Wildlife ConflictIUCN SSC HWCTF Briefing Paper on What is Human-Wildlife Conflict?IUCN SSC HWCTF Briefing Paper on Perspectives on Human-Wildlife CoexistenceIUCN Issues BriefKey resourcesWebsiteEmailFaceboo

76、kTwitterYouTubeLinkedInResearchG contacts&social mediaDr Alexandra Zimmermann,Chairalexandra.zimmermannssc.iucn.orgDr James Stevens,Programme Officerinfohwctf.org Ms Luna Milatovi,Policy Officerpolicyhwctf.orgxiiiIUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCEAbout these GuidelinesAs

77、human-wildlife conflicts become more frequent,serious and widespread worldwide,they are notoriously challenging to resolve,and many efforts to address these conflicts struggle to make progress.Challenges typically arise because:How can we understand the complexities of human-wildlife conflict better

78、?The Guidelines aim to provide foundations and principles for good practice,with clear,practical guidance on how best to tackle conflicts and enable coexistence with wildlife.They have been developed for use by conservation practitioners,community leaders,decision makers,researchers,government offic

79、ers and others.Focusing on approaches and tools for analysis and decision making,they are not limited to any particular species or region of the world.The Guidelines have been developed as a comprehensive and practical resource,hopefully relevant to any human-wildlife conflict situation,irrespective

80、 of species or region,which can be used by any individual,organisation,community or government that is trying to manage human-wildlife conflict and achieve coexistence.The aim of these Guidelines is to improve the management of human-wildlife conflict globally,supporting efforts to be pursued throug

81、h well-informed,holistic and collaborative processes that take into account underlying social,cultural and economic contexts.The chapters are set out across five foundational Principles of understanding and managing human-wildlife conflict.It is not necessary to read the Guidelines from beginning to

82、 end;we suggest using the Principles and the Good Practice Checklist as an essential general guide,and consulting chapters according to interests and needs.How to use these GuidelinesWhat are the best approaches and solutions that benefit people and wildlife?Who needs to be involved in achieving las

83、ting coexistence?These Guidelines provide an essential guide to understanding and resolving human-wildlife conflict.The Guidelines answer key questions such as:the unique cultural,political and economic contexts of each situation are poorly understood;the complicated relationships between the differ

84、ent groups of people involved are difficult to understand and address;each case is unique,and solutions are rarely transferable from one situation to another;effective methods of damage and retaliation control may be socially unacceptable and/or financially unsustainable;anddecision-making processes

85、 are not inclusive or transparent.IUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCExiv Adobe Stock/WildMediaIntroductionWildlife can pose a direct threat to the safety,livelihoods and well-being of people.Retaliation against the species blamed often ensues,leading to conflict between gr

86、oups of people about what should be done to resolve the situation.Although this is not a new phenomenon people and wildlife have lived in proximity to each other for millennia it is one that is becoming much more of a global concern for conservation and development interests alike.These conflicts ov

87、er wildlife,commonly called human-wildlife conflict involve many different terrestrial and aquatic species,ranging from large cats,bears,elephants,deer,primates,sharks,seals,crocodilians,snakes,rhinos,otters,to invertebrates and plants,and many more.Human-wildlife conflict also negatively affects co

88、mmunities,which need to support and benefit from the wider conservation goals.It poses serious challenges to governments and organisations trying to align wildlife conservation with sustainable development,among other pressures.Furthermore,where conservation successes have resulted in wildlife popul

89、ation increases,or species have recovered and expanded their ranges,human-wildlife conflicts often follow.Extensive efforts to understand and manage human-wildlife conflicts have revealed that these situations tend to be complex,dynamic and multi-layered.Effective and practical methods for preventin

90、g the impacts of wildlife on people and their livelihoods(such as livestock predation or crop raiding)are,in many cases,difficult to find.Furthermore,retaliatory or preventative persecution of wildlife by people is often complicated by past experience,fears,perceptions or wider underlying social ten

91、sions.Thus human-wildlife conflicts are usually about more than the apparent species-human interaction;they also involve several stakeholders set in specific contexts of environmental,social and economic change.Efforts to manage human-wildlife conflict often do not sufficiently seek to understand an

92、d address the underlying social conflicts that shape these situations.Faced with urgent pressures to address the visible damage or threat,organisations and governments trying their best to alleviate the situation are often pressured into rushed physical interventions to control damage and retaliatio

93、n.However,human-wildlife conflicts involve tensions among the underlying values of the parties involved,which Human-wildlife conflict:a global conservation challengeIntroductionAlexandra Zimmermann,Simon Pooley,John Linnell,Jenny A.Glickman,Silvio Marchini,Catherine Hill&Camilla SandstrmIUCN SSC GUI

94、DELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCE02requires entirely different approaches for which there is often insufficient expertise.This,together with limited resources,means that human-wildlife conflicts are notoriously difficult to manage.Most human-wildlife relationships are complex and dy

95、namic,and for many cases of human-wildlife conflict a perfectly harmonious state of coexistence may not be a realistic goal.The management of human-wildlife conflict is best pursued through sustained,collaborative and process-driven efforts,with the technical support of interdisciplinary expertise,i

96、ncluding Indigenous and/or community leaders,peacebuilding practitioners,animal behaviour specialists,geographers,social scientists,biologists,development economists and others,to develop more integrated and sustainable approaches to addressing this global challenge.Some human-wildlife conflicts inv

97、olve situations where lives and livelihoods are at very serious risk,requiring urgent attention that cannot wait for the outcomes of research,dialogues and conflict mediation.As such,human-wildlife conflict presents not only a global challenge,but also an opportunity for biodiversity and communities

98、 a crucial part of the UN Convention on Biological Diversitys vision for the planet in which“humanity lives in harmony with nature and in which wildlife and other living species are protected.”.IntroductionDefining human-wildlife conflictand coexistence In trying to capture broadly the essence of wh

99、at makes a situation a human-wildlife conflict,the IUCN SSC Human-Wildlife Conflict&Coexistence Specialist Group defines human-wildlife conflict as struggles that emerge when the presence or behaviour of wildlife poses actual or perceived,direct and recurring threats to human interests or needs,lead

100、ing to disagreements between groups of people and negative impacts on people and/or wildlife(IUCN SSC HWCTF,2020).At its core,human-wildlife conflict is about a direct or perceived interaction between wildlife and people,over which there is some clash or disagreement among the people involved.Human-

101、wildlife conflicts typically contain elements of interaction,intention or recurrence,linked to underlying social tensions,and often involve species of concern to conservation.Thus,situations such as crop raiding by elephants leading to poisoning of elephants by farmers,or livestock predation by lion

102、s causing local persecution of lions,or mass culling of birds or bats to prevent damage to orchards are fairly clear cases of human-wildlife conflict.There are,however,many other circumstances involving wildlife that may or may not be regarded as human-wildlife conflict,depending on viewpoints.Poach

103、ing,vehicle collisions,rare attacks and disease transmissions are scenarios in which the delineation of whether or not they constitute human-wildlife conflict is context dependent.For example,poaching of wildlife is not necessarily a human-wildlife conflict if the animal has been killed only with th

104、e motivation to obtain meat,body parts or a trophy,for trade,recreation or cultural reasons.If,however,the animals poached had also been blamed for damage caused to livelihoods,then their killing may have been influenced by,and therefore incorporated,a degree of human-wild-life conflict to some exte

105、nt.Collisions between animals and aeroplanes,trains,cars,boats or other vehicles are considered by some as human-wildlife conflict,while others argue that if these are purely accidental,then this does 03IUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCEnot constitute a conflict.Some case

106、s of recurring collisions lead to clashes among groups of people,and thereby begin to take on characteristics of conflict.Where collisions are deliberate for example,drivers striking wildlife on purpose out of superstition or aggression towards the species this also leads to disagreements among peop

107、le,and is more clearly a case of human-wildlife conflict.Similarly,incidences of predation on humans by,for example,carnivores or sharks may be considered rare,tragic events rather than conflict.However,when recurrence,resentment or retaliation against the species starts to emerge and tensions among

108、 stakeholders grow,this too can develop into human-wildlife conflict.Along these lines it follows that zoonotic or other disease transmission from wildlife to humans or their livestock are also not clear cut in terms of whether they should be classed as human-wildlife conflicts.Again,context-specifi

109、c characteristics and perceptions will guide whether or not it is useful to include these in the definition of human-wildlife conflict.For example,widespread killing of bats or monkeys arising out of fear of epidemic disease outbreaks certainly takes on characteristic elements of human-wildlife conf

110、lict.The main characteristics ofhuman-wildlife conflictsThe definition recognises that human-wildlife conflicts are diverse and complex,and typically marked by the following three characteristics,an understanding of which is key for effective management of human-wildlife conflict:Human-wildlife conf

111、licts involve interactions between people and wildlife that are direct and recurring.1.All human-wildlife conflicts result from some form of real or perceived damage or threat caused by wildlife.However,the degree to which the conflict is merely about the presence or behaviour of animals versus how

112、much the human-wildlife conflict is actually a conflict between different groups of people about the wildlife,can vary greatly.Damage caused by wildlife can range from being negligible or even perceived,to economically devastating and life threatening.Whatever the severity,if people react negatively

113、 to this real or perceived damage,and especially if the situation becomes a recurring event,human-wildlife conflict usually ensues.Human-wildlife conflicts are almost always underpinned by social conflicts between people over the management of wildlife.Typically,these involve one party reacting to t

114、he presence/impact of the species and another party asserting conservation interests on behalf of that species.Usually several groups are involved,each with different interests,values and needs.In some cases,people may use complaints about wildlife as a vehicle to express other grievances about issu

115、es unrelated to wildlife,such as clashes over identities,values,power differences or social justice,irrespective of the measurable impact of the species involved.In rare cases,the wildlife itself may also be considered to be party to the conflict,as has been observed in some incidences of elephants

116、attacking people in retaliation for past confrontations.2.IntroductionIUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCE04Coexistence is the aim,but not the opposite,of human-wildlife conflict The concept of coexistence has emerged into the mainstream of conservation science as an increa

117、singly significant framing for thinking about human-wildlife interactions.However,despite its potential to stimulate a systems change in thinking about human-wildlife interactions,at present the concept is still being defined,with diverse suggestions on how to operationalise it.Resolving some of the

118、se issues is important to interested researchers and practitioners working on the challenges associated with human-wildlife interactions,and is therefore also a core focus of the Specialist Group going forward.Just as human-wildlife conflict is complex and context-specific,so is human-wildlife coexi

119、stence.At the most basic level,coexistence suggests that at some level and in some form a choice is being made by humans to share landscapes and natural resources with wildlife in sustainable ways.It follows that,in order to do so,coexistence generally also requires agreement or at the very least,co

120、operation between different groups of people about the wildlife in question.Coexistence can be conceived of more loosely as a set of ideas(see below)that are useful for enabling diverse research disciplines,and non-researchers,to collaborate on mutual challenges relating to how best to facilitate sh

121、aring landscapes with wildlife,without requiring total agreement on a definition.The Specialist Group intends to support constructive discussions of coexistence,and as a basis for this,proposes seven broad characteristics of coexistence helpful for exploring its nature:Coexistence is often discussed

122、 as a dynamic state,or process,rather than an endpoint on a continuum from conflict to coexistence.A state of coexistence,for example,does not imply that there is an absence of conflict or require an absence of negative interactions or impacts:it refers to how these are understood and managed.Indeed

123、,a broad state of coexistence normally contains incidences of conflict within it,but these conflicts are managed and/or tolerated well.1.Coexistence is not simply the opposite(or absence)of conflict.Human-wildlife conflicts tend to involve species of conservation concern that are negatively affectin

124、g human interests.This is because,for situations involving IUCN Threatened Red Listed or otherwise protected species,killing the wildlife believed to be responsible is usually not an option for those wishing to protect that species.This often results in higher stakes and solutions of greater complex

125、ity.Without the option of being able to legally eliminate the species causing losses for people and communities,and presented with clashing perceived valuations of that species and options for its management,the result is a fuelling of the social conflicts that underlie human-wildlife conflicts.3.St

126、udying human-wildlife interactions and human-human interactions over wildlife holistically 2.Coexistence does not prioritise negative human-wildlife interactions.05IUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCEIntroductionMany kinds of wildlife,including abundant,uncharismatic and in

127、troduced species,have significant impacts on peoples livelihoods,and attitudes toward conservation.A coexistence framing includes the interactions of all these kinds of wildlife with people in multi-use landscapes.3.Coexistence emphasises human-wildlife interactions in multi-use landscapes.The aim i

128、s to transform conflict scenarios into durable,workable coexistence not just at local scales but also at the landscape level.This requires taking into consideration multiple species including those of less concern to conservationists,multiple stakeholders with diverse views on the costs and benefits

129、 of cohabiting with wildlife,patterns and processes occurring at broad spatial and temporal scales and which impact on local scenarios,a range of management solutions with varying applicability and effectiveness across different scenarios,and diverse capacity and resource constraints.4.Coexistence m

130、ust work at broad landscape scales,as well as resolving specific problems in particular places.Our current understanding highlights the high degree of complexity and local specificity of human-wildlife and human-human interactions.We are currently working on accumulating a significant body of knowle

131、dge from diverse settings.5.Coexistence is ecologically and socially complex and context specific.While desiring coexistence with wildlife is a goal for conservationists,this might not be the goal of all of those affected by wildlife;nor should contrasting views be regarded as inherently unacceptabl

132、e.Taking such differences into account requires recognising ones own positionality and accepting other worldviews and the rights of local and Indigenous peoples.6.Coexistence requires self-awareness from conservationists.Understanding,and intervening in,human-wildlife interactions and human-human re

133、lations requires consideration of historic legacies of conservation,and asymmetries in power and influence of actors in landscapes shared by humans and wildlife.Attempts to foster coexistence should consider which parties(human and non-human)are favoured by attempts to facilitate coexistence,and whi

134、ch parties may suffer.Ideally,they require the participation of all affected groups in transparent and democratic processes for framing and developing management aims,plans and procedures.Humans as well as wild animals should have agency and reasonable freedom to choose how to behave in shared lands

135、capes.7.Coexistence involves consideration of power,equity and justice.Given the rich diversity of currently developing ideas on coexistence,it may be best mobilised as a more flexible concept to enable diverse research disciplines,as well as non-researchers,to collaborate on mutual challenges and l

136、earning.There is a need to accumulate case studies of where coexistence occurs in order to understand better what factors enable and sustain coexistence,and what can be learned from this.requires consideration of both positive and neutral interactions and relations,in addition to the negative.Positi

137、ve reframing and language can be very helpful in transforming conflicts,so long as communities grievances are not dismissed in the process.IntroductionIUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCE06Essential considerations for managingconflicts and coexistenceHuman-wildlife conflict

138、s are complex and defy easy analysis and resolution.Each human-wildlife conflict is different from the next,and what may work in one case may not be transferrable to another.Effective and sustainable practical methods to mitigate damage and minimise retaliation are often difficult to find and,even w

139、here they do exist,they are often not implemented in a socially and financially sustainable way.A seemingly straightforward issue of guarding a herd of cows or fencing a patch of crops can escalate into a deeply divided ongoing conflict about who is to blame,who should pay,who did what wrong in the

140、past,to whom the wildlife belongs and who should be responsible for possible solutions.Given the different dimensions involved,there is a need for holistic,interdisciplinary approaches,which should consider carefully the following essential insights for human-wildlife conflict management:Interventio

141、ns such as fencing,deterrents and compensation schemes are often urgently needed,especially when there is pressure on agencies,governments and conservation organisations to deliver solutions.In cases where there is no particular underlying social conflict,such damage reduction measures can work well

142、 if practically effective and economically viable however,such scenarios are relatively rare.For most human-wildlife conflicts,developing an intervention to reduce damage by wildlife is best pursued as a process rather than a direct transfer of a pre-defined method from one site to another.Each case

143、 of human-wildlife conflict has unique ecological,cultural,social,physical,economic and political characteristics,and each has different histories,attributes and opportunities.1.Interventions that focus only on reducing damage are not transferable from one case to another.Attempts to manage conflict

144、s rapidly and without consideration of underlying sociopolitical and biological elements can exacerbate pre-existing tensions and escalate human-wildlife conflicts into intractable conflicts in which parties become polarised.This can occur when a damage reduction method is copied from one context an

145、d transferred to another without following a process of engagement with stakeholders.The method may work only temporarily,expectations and hopes may be raised and then dashed,leading to misunderstandings about responsibilities and ownership of the solution,and increased divisions and mistrust betwee

146、n the groups involved.Similarly,a trial-and-error approach to human-wildlife conflicts is generally not recommended.While some experimentation with damage reduction measures may be needed,such trials should be evidence-based as far as possible,and must be carefully designed together with the affecte

147、d parties,not imported ready-made by an external party.2.Poorly informed human-wildlife conflict mitigation attempts can make the situation worse.Who are the various stakeholders and actors involved in the situation,and what are their relationships,histories and power differences?While there is usua

148、lly at least one notable community or group most directly affected by the species blamed,most human-wildlife conflicts are multilateral,involving(to varying degrees)other stakeholders as well.Understanding the values,social norms,beliefs,culture,economics,interactions between stakeholders and other

149、social and political factors is key for planning and implementing any human-wildlife conflict mitigation initiative.Because of the 3.Context awareness and understanding of social and political backgrounds are crucial.07IUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCEIntroductionFinally

150、,conflicts are not always negative,and words and language matter.Conflicts bring about change.As such,conflicts can be positive opportunities leading to dialogue,stimulating action and forcing a potentially bad situation to be resolved or improved.If addressed properly,human-wildlife conflicts force

151、 us to look at underlying tensions and inequalities and work together for improved well-being,development and conservation.Nevertheless,the term human-wildlife conflict is not without implications and thus much debated in the conservation community.Some prefer to refer to these situations as conflic

152、ts over wildlife or conservation conflicts,while others prefer to avoid the complexity of contexts,questionnaire-based studies are best complemented with more in-depth approaches that provide additional understanding of the layers,histories and nuances of human-wildlife conflict cases.Such context a

153、ssessments also benefit greatly from multi-expertise collaborations,involving for example social scientists,development specialists or conflict analysists to help understand the issues contributing to the human-wildlife conflictKey for the success and sustainability of any human-wildlife conflict pr

154、oject or initiative is the development of a collaborative way of working.To do so,officials or project staff need to build rapport with the affected communities and other involved parties,while remaining aware of their own positions.Often the process of jointly defining project goals and plans is us

155、eful as a vehicle for building such collaboration,trust and cooperation among the parties.Genuine collaboration can allow a balance of diverse goals,negotiation of acceptable trade-offs and allow communities to adjust their expectations about levels of impact or develop skills required to adapt to n

156、ew situations in the future.In cases of deep-rooted(also known as identity-based)conflicts,in which stakeholders are so mistrustful of each other that collaborative working is not currently realistic,help from trained peace mediators may be needed for reconciliation work before or alongside efforts

157、to address the human-wildlife conflict.4.Conflict mitigation and damage reduction interventions must be designed and managed collaboratively.Many human-wildlife conflicts involve species that range across highly fragmented habitats and/or well beyond protected areas into human-dominated landscapes.M

158、itigating damage by wildlife to promote tolerance by people,even when successful,may provide only a short-term solution.Once emergencies are brought under control,human-wildlife conflict initiatives must begin to consider how and where people and wildlife will be able to share the landscape in the l

159、ong term,and what legal and development frameworks are needed to enable this.It is crucial for communities living near wildlife to be actively engaged in ideas and decisions,supporting,for example,biologists,ecologists and geographers in gaining an understanding of a given species movement patterns,

160、resource needs and behaviour.Many species have very advanced learning and behavioural capacities,an understanding of which can help the design of depredation interventions and movement options.Such landscape-scale planning also generates important sectoral collaborations,across,for example,agricultu

161、re,forestry,health,environment,transport,energy or defence agencies.5.Long-term solutions need to incorporate landscape-scale ecological,economic and physical patterns.IntroductionIUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCE08word conflict altogether and focus on human-wildlife coe

162、xistence or human-wildlife interactions rather than the conflicting aspects of relationships between people and wildlife.Whichever the preferred and appropriate term for a given situation,it is important to consider context and sensitivity to the possible effects of words used.For example,calling a

163、relatively mild situation a conflict can escalate it unnecessarily;conversely,however,avoiding it altogether may leave communities feeling that their situation is not receiving sufficient attention.Different cultures,languages,communities and countries will use different words to describe these situ

164、ations.This introduction is a combined reprint from three briefing papers written by the IUCN SSC Human-Wildlife Conflict&Coexistence Specialist Group(available at www.hwctf.org/document-library):IUCN(2020).IUCN SSC Position Statement on the Management of Human-Wildlife Conflict.IUCN Species Surviva

165、l Commission(SSC)Human-Wildlife Conflict Task Force.IUCN SSC HWCTF(2020).What is human-wildlife conflict?Briefing Paper by the IUCN SSC Human-Wildlife Conflict Task Force.IUCN SSC HWCTF(2022).Perspectives on human-wildlife coexistence.Briefing Paper by the IUCN SSC Human-Wildlife Conflict Task Force

166、.Unsplash/Ken Kahiri09IUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCEIntroduction Pexels/Tamilanban SubramanianPrinciplesDo no harmUnderstand issuesand contextWork togetherIntegrate scienceand policyEnable sustainablepathwaysPrinciples54321 FAO/David Mansell-Moullin11IUCN SSC GUIDELIN

167、ES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCEPrinciples Follow the precautionary principle Follow ethical guidance Assess the risk of unintended consequences Appreciate the uniqueness of each case Consider history and environmental justice Be mindful of your non-impartialityDo no harm Know that all

168、human-wildlife conflicts are complex and multi-layered Do not rush into assumptions about causal links Seek to understand social contexts and drivers Seek to understand ecological and spatial drivers Assess the political and governance contextUnderstand issues and context Identify and involve all re

169、levant stakeholders Co-develop a theory of change and action plan or strategy Design and manage solutions collaboratively Encourage and support community-led solutions Transfer ownership of process and decisions Work in multidisciplinary teams and across sectorsWork together Study the human,societal

170、 and political perspective Assess the physical,ecological and natural patterns Avoid quick fixes;do not copypaste solutions Adapt to local governance,political and policy contexts Create opportunities for training and capacity building Create a collective learning loop:measure,evaluate and adaptInte

171、grate science and policy Minimise and redistribute costs burdens fairly Nurture societal and cultural values of wildlife Create sustainable economic benefits from wildlife Incorporate long-term ecological needs Develop and nurture ongoing dialogue and build relationships Anticipate and prevent emerg

172、ing conflictsEnable sustainable pathways3.1.2.4.5.IUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCE12PrinciplesThis checklist,building on the foundational Principles,is considered from the perspective of parties seeking to support and manage the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts an

173、d conflicts over wildlife,and facilitate progress towards coexistence.These parties include conservation organisations,government agencies,local organisations and grant-giving institutions.Good practice checklist10 guiding questions for turningthe Principles into practicePrinciple:Do no harmChapters

174、:1)Levels of conflict over wildlife,2)The role of the conservationistHas the level of conflict been identified?Principle:Do no harmChapters:3)Interventions:to act or not to act?4)Avoiding unintended consequencesHave the ethics,consequences and roles of actors been considered?Principle:Understand iss

175、ues and contextChapters:5)Assessing the impacts of conflict,6)Natural drivers of human-wildlife conflict,7)Animal behaviourHave the natural,ecological and land-use factors been considered?Principle:Understand issues and contextChapters:8)Attitudes,tolerance and human behaviour,9)Culture and wildlife

176、,10)How histories shape interactions,11)Livelihoods,poverty and well-being,12)Governing human-wildlife conflictsHave the underlying social,cultural,historical and political contexts beenunderstood?Principle:Work togetherChapters:13)Working with stakeholders and communities,14)Traditional ecological

177、knowledge,15)Planning and theory of changeHas the project/intervention been planned together with stakeholders?13IUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCEPrinciplesPrinciple:Work togetherChapters:16)Dialogue:a process for conflict resolution,17)Resolving conflicts between people

178、,18)Engaging with the media and social mediaIs the initiative benefiting from multidisciplinary teams across sectors?Principle:Integrate science and policyChapters:19)Social science research,20)Ecological research,21)Planning across landscapes,25)Animal capture and translocation,26)Lethal control to

179、olsAre planning and actions based on evidence and sound science?Principle:Integrate science and policyChapters:22)Political ecology of wildlife,23)Law and human-wildlife conflict,24)Policy instrumentsAre relevant aspects of governance and policies incorporated?Principle:Enable sustainable pathwaysCh

180、apters:27)Preventing damage by wildlife,28)Response teamsAre interventions based on best available and jointly led knowledge?Principle:Enable sustainable pathwaysChapters:29)Social marketing and behaviour change,30)Economic incentives,31)Compensation and insurance,32)Evaluating interventionsIs there

181、 an exit strategy from financial or technical dependence?Adobe Stock/TariqIUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCE14Principles.Levels of conflict over wildlife.The role of the conservationist.Interventions:to act or not to act?.Avoiding unintended consequences1.Do no harm.Asses

182、sing the impacts of conflict.Natural drivers of human-wildlife conflict.Animal behaviour.Attitudes,tolerance and human behaviour.Culture and wildlife.How histories shape interactions.Livelihoods,poverty and well-being.Governing human-wildlife conflicts2.Understand issues and context.Working with sta

183、keholders and communities.Traditional ecological knowledge.Planning and theory of change.Dialogue:a process for conflict resolution.Resolving conflicts between people.Engaging with the media and social media3.Work together.Social science research.Ecological research methods.Planning across landscape

184、s.Political ecology of wildlife.Law and human-wildlife conflict.Policy instruments.Animal capture and translocation.Lethal control tools4.Integrate science and policy.Preventing damage by wildlife.Response teams.Social marketing and behaviour change.Economic incentives.Compensation and insurance.Eva

185、luating interventions5.Enable sustainable pathwaysList of chapters15IUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCEPrinciplesCase studies andfurther resourcesThere are several resources available to help support and complement the content of the IUCN SSC guidelines on human-wildlife c

186、onflict and coexistence in the form of human-wildlife conflict and coexistence case studies and the Human-Wildlife Conflict&Coexistence Library.Case studiesIn collaboration with the UN Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO),a set of case studies has been developed with the aim of covering the proces

187、ses that various projects have undergone to understand,plan and address various aspects of a human-wildlife conflict situation,while highlighting the lessons learnt.The case studies are used to illustrate the chapters within these Guidelines with real-life examples.Their aim is not to highlight what

188、 has been done,but to show the processes followed in managing the different situations,which means they are applicable to a range of circumstances,irrespective of the species,region or stakeholders involved.The case studies cover topics such as:participatory approaches to understanding a human-wildl

189、ife conflict situation to inform future management;building communities capacities to coexist with wildlife;developing and evaluating a deterrent intervention through stakeholder involvement;and developing a programme to deliver the benefits of living with wildlife.The case studies can be found here

190、:www.hwctf.org/case-studiesIUCN Human-Wildlife Conflict&Coexistence LibraryThe IUCN SSC Human-Wildlife Conflict&Coexistence Library is the largest,and continuously growing,open resource library of recommended literature,manuals and materials on human-wildlife conflict and coexistence.It contains the

191、matically arranged sections,taxonomic focal sections,key articles,policy documents,videos and much more.Many of the chapters in these Guidelines have corresponding thematic sections within the Library,which provide further key reading if you would like to gain more in-depth knowledge of a topic.The

192、key topics include engaging with stakeholders,conflict analysis and theory,social research methods,political ecology of conflicts,cultural dimensions,the role of the media,monitoring and evaluation,deterrents and repellents and many more.The Library can be accessed here:www.hwctf.org/document-librar

193、yIUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCE16Do no harm FAO/Quadad de Freitas IUCN SSC GUIDELINESPRINCIPLE 1Human-wildlife conflicts are complex and vary greatly in terms of apparent solvability.Some are more protracted,entrenched and challenging to address than others.Some human

194、-wildlife conflicts seem to be mainly about damage or loss obvious to any observer,while other situations seem to be entangled in historic grievances,polarised opinions between groups of people and side-issues that seem unrelated to the conflict.All human-wildlife conflicts involve disputes between

195、people about wildlife.When wildlife and humans interact and there is no disagreement among people about this interaction,then there is essentially no human-wildlife conflict.It follows,then,that actions to change the interaction between wildlife and people for example,by reducing damage caused to cr

196、ops by species,or by reducing retaliatory killing of the species by humans only resolves the conflict if all human parties involved agree that the problem is solved.If anyone involved in the conflict feels that the situation is not settled,then the conflict remains and will usually continue to worse

197、n until the parties concerns are satisfied.Underlying conflict dynamics can be identified using the Levels of Conflict framework(CICR,2002;Madden&McQuinn,2014;Zimmermann et al.,2020)(Figure 1),which describes three levels of conflict and provides guidance on the types of conflict reduction approach

198、suitable for each.We argue that solving the wrong problem,i.e.misdiagnosing the level of conflict in a given human-wildlife conflict situation,or ignoring underlying issues,is not just inefficient,it is far more serious:it actively does harm.Levels of conflictover wildlifeAlexandra Zimmermann&Brian

199、McQuinn C H A P T E R 1IUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCE18 Sugoto RoyChapter 1|Levels of conflict over wildlifeThe three levels of conflictLevel 1Disputes are the obvious and tangible issues being fought over by those involved,such as crop or livestock loss,reintroductio

200、n of a species,or access to a national park.The positions of those involved in the conflict are often clearly stated,creating the impression that these are the only issues at stake.For some conflicts,this is true,but all too often human-wildlife conflicts contain more layers than this.In these less

201、intense situations,tensions are tempered by tolerance of,or appreciation for,the species involved.This makes Level 1 conflicts less complicated for conservationists to identify,quantify,address,and monitor(relative to Level 2 or 3 conflicts).Unfortunately,most conflicts have more going on under the

202、surface than might be initially obvious.Level 2 If Level 1 conflicts are not settled satisfactorily for all the parties involved,feelings of resentment and injustice can take root among some of them.Over time,these unresolved disputes and the feelings associated with them accumulate.Underlying(or Le

203、vel 2)conflicts have a history of ineffective responses,which may also be perceived by certain stakeholders as being unfair or misleading,leading to greater animosity towards the species involved and those trying to address the problem.Those involved begin to develop an“us versus them”mentality towa

204、rds others involved in the situation.From the perspective of those involved,disputes are an opportunity to redress past injustices.This is why the existence of underlying conflicts make future disputes more likely.It is also why settlements of disputes that do not address underlying conflicts are of

205、ten only temporary fixes.A key feature of underlying conflict is a poisoning of the relationships among those party to the conflict.Crucially,this Levels of conflict over wildlifeDeep-rooted conflictLosses of crops,livestock,income,safetyHistory of recurring issue not satisfactorily resolvedSocial i

206、dentity or values threatenedUnderlying conflictLosses of crops,livestock,income,safetyHistory of recurring issue not satisfactorily resolved Dispute+Figure 1.The levels of conflict over wildlife(Source:Zimmermann et al.(2020)Losses of crops,livestock,income,safety+19IUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILD

207、LIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCE123history of unresolved issues and the animosity and complexity they create may not be immediately apparent to third parties.Level 3 The most entrenched and complex human-wildlife conflicts are Level 3,also called deep-rooted or identity-based conflicts.This level of co

208、nflict arises from stakeholders perception that a human-wildlife conflict threatens their values or identity.They occur when conflicts over conservation align with other intense socio-political divisions.Conservation becomes intertwined with these broader conflicts,making it more challenging for con

209、servationists to identify the problem and help address the situation.A thorough and nuanced understanding of the situation-achieved through quantitative and qualitative assessments-is essential to ensure that those trying to resolve the conflict avoid causing harm to stakeholder groups or exacerbati

210、ng the conflict.Examples of the three levels of conflict over wildlifeLevel 1The detrimental impact of damage by elephants in some communities in north-east India is significant for poor farmers,who can lose their entire livelihood to elephants in a single night.Despite this,some communities are wil

211、ling to work with outside parties(e.g.government officials or conservation organisations)to find solutions because they have a strong,culturally grounded appreciation of elephants.Community-led interventions(e.g.fencing and deterrents)have largely resolved the human-elephant conflict situation in th

212、ese areas(Davies et al.,2011;Wilson et al.,2013;Zimmermann et al.,2009),although continual work is needed to ensure that relations remain collaborative.Level 2The island nation of Mauritius is home to the endemic and endangered Mauritian fruit bat,which feeds on fruits in commercial orchards and res

213、idential gardens.Over time,tensions have escalated as damage to lychee and mango orchards,and the mess and noise from the presence of bats in peoples back yards,have increased and,controversially,led to government-endorsed culling of bats.At the heart of this conflict is a history of disputes betwee

214、n stakeholder groups that were not properly addressed.Consequently,resolving this conflict requires a focus on a process of bringing together the parties to create longer-term and mutually agreed solutions(IUCN SSC,2018;Milgroom&Spierenburg,2008;A.Zimmermann,E.A.Macdonald,et al.,2020).Level 3Conflic

215、ts over the presence or introduction of wolves has led to some of the most intractable human-wildlife conflicts worldwide.People living in several regions with wolf populations in Europe and North America can hold extremely negative perceptions of the species,and may mistrust the government agencies

216、 responsible for wolf populations.It is not uncommon for certain groups of ranchers to express a strong hatred of wolves and Box 1Chapter 1|Levels of conflict over wildlifeIUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCE20Identifying the level of conflictIdentifying the levels of confl

217、ict in a human-wildlife conflict situation requires a deeper analysis of the political,social and economic circumstances of the parties to the conflict.Ecological research methods provide a process for identifying the environmental and ecological factors at play(see Chapter 20,Ecological research).A

218、dditionally,quantitative and qualitative social research methods,such as surveys,focus groups and participant observation,can reveal crucial insights into perceptions,values,beliefs,needs and other influences on the situation(see Chapter 8,Attitudes,tolerance and human behaviour and Chapter 19,Socia

219、l science research).Most human-wildlife conflict assessments focus on the obvious disputes(e.g.what happened,which field was raided,how much was lost),and not the underlying causes for the tensions(e.g.how this has been handled in the past,who is blamed,other tensions that exist between those involv

220、ed).As well intentioned as addressing the obvious problem is,this is often insufficient to uncover the underlying conflict dynamics.If a solution to the obvious issue fails to settle the problem,this is a clue that there are underlying issues driving the tension.Unless these issues are uncovered and

221、 addressed(at least partly),solutions targeting only the obvious manifestations of the problem are unlikely to settle the dispute.Worse,ignoring these issues tends to lead to short-lived solutions(however well-meaning)that can actually worsen the underlying conflicts.In most cases,individuals famili

222、ar with a situation are acutely aware of the underlying levels of conflict affecting the situation.There are some tell-tale signs and symptoms that provide clues about the different levels of conflict present in a human-wildlife conflict(Figure 2).all they represent.The intensity of that feeling is

223、often disproportionate to the level of risk,and can persist even when wolf depredation on sheep is reduced to a negligible level.The hostility persists because the human-wolf conflicts have evolved alongside,and are now embedded in,wider issues of social,political and cultural change in these region

224、s.Relationships between stakeholders have deteriorated badly,and there are significant value differences over an animal that has come to symbolise the deep disconnect and discontent among those involved(Milgroom&Spierenburg,2008;Skogen et al.,2008;Treves et al.,2013;Witter,2013).Unsplash/Rohit Varma

225、21IUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCEChapter 1|Levels of conflict over wildlifeIdentifying levels of conflict over wildlifeFigure 2.The symptoms of each level of conflict(Source:Zimmermann et al.(2020)In a Level 1 human-wildlife conflict,the parties affected by the wildlif

226、e express sympathy for the needs of wildlife(e.g.they have lost their habitat and dont have enough to eat),and the problem centres on economic losses and security.There is usually little history of interventions to settle the issue,or perhaps those previous experiences were not perceived as negative

227、(e.g.they did not cause disappointments or misunderstandings).There is a general willingness to adapt habits or invest in measures to solve the dispute(e.g.modify cropping routines or building fences),and an openness to receiving help in doing so.In a Level 2 conflict,the affected parties are much m

228、ore likely to express a strong dislike of the species involved.There is also a very strong NIMBY(not in my back yard)effect and palpable frustration,which is expressed through exasperated tones of speech and by exaggerating the impact of incidences to amplify and draw attention to them.Individuals o

229、r organisations have usually tried to resolve the issue but these efforts have gone badly(e.g.ineffective or poorly managed,leading to misunderstandings and resentment that reinforce negative feelings).There is an expectation that someone should be fixing or paying for the damage(e.g.an NGO,governme

230、nt or company)and there is scepticism or mistrust of the motivations of others interested in working on the issue(e.g.who sent you?).In a Level 3 conflict,the language and behaviour of those affected are strongly negative,and disproportionate to the damage involved(e.g.highly dramatised).Parties use

231、 strong or polarised language,and descriptions of previous attempts to solve the issue are described as complete failures.In addition,the affected parties are reluctant or even refuse to cooperate with each other(e.g.conservationists)or with the authorities(e.g.government agencies)to try to reduce t

232、he impact,and there is hostility and scepticism or sarcasm about the intentions of others.Chapter 1|Levels of conflict over wildlifeIUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCE22123Sympathy for the needs of wildlifeMainly concerned about lossesNot much history of attempts to resolv

233、eWillingness to adapt own habitsOpenness to receiving helpDislike of the species,strong NIMBY effectAccumulated frustration,exaggeration of incidencesA history of unresolved losses,resentment Expectation someone else should fix or compensate Sceptical about motivations of othersStrongly negative,dis

234、proportionate to damage Use of strong or polarized languageVery negative reflections about history of attempts Reluctant to cooperate and reduce damageHostility towards the intentions of othersPerceptions about the species blamed in a conflict Views of the human-wildlife conflict issues at stakeAsse

235、ssments of previous attempts to address the conflictWillingness of the parties to find a solution Perceptions about those not directly party to the conflict Table 1.Key areas of questioning and typical responses that help identify the level of conflict over wildlifeStrong negative emotions and respo

236、nses that seem disproportionate to the damage caused by the situation.Vilification,exaggeration and transfer of blame.Hostility towards the intentions of others,including sarcasm or blaming.Perception that their identity and values are not understood or valued.Unwilling or very reluctant to make mod

237、ifications to help reduce damage.Very negative reflections about the history of attempts to address the problem perceived as unhelpful or even deceptive.Use of strong or polarising language.Perceived as very serious and/or a threat to a partys way of life.Level 3:Identity-based conflict Dislike of t

238、he species involved.Strong NIMBY effect(not in my back yard).Scepticism about the motivations of others and the prospect of a solution.An expectation that someone else should solve this issue,or provide compensation.There is a history of unresolved disputes or resentment about the actions of third p

239、arties.Accumulated frustration about the situation,seen as a major issue.Frequency and impact of losses usually exaggerated.Neutral or positive response to questions about the species.For example,empathy or understanding regarding the needs of wildlife.Responses to questions about the speciesOthers

240、are perceived as genuine or trustworthy in their attempts to help.Willingness to adapt habits and cooperate with interventions.Openness to receiving help and cooperating with pilot solutions.Few attempts to settle the dispute,or previous attempts were seen as helpful or perceived neutrally.Responses

241、 to questions about the history of attempts Complaints about income loss or concerns about safety.Main concern is with tangible impacts or losses.Responses to questions about others involved in the issueResponses to questions about finding solutions Responses to questions about the situation Level 2

242、:Underlying conflictLevel 1:DisputeLEVEL OF CONFLICTTo facilitate diagnosis,we suggest five categories of information that can help analyse a particular human-wildlife conflict:These lines of inquiry will help reveal the level of conflict present(Table 1),and can be incorporated into qualitative and

243、 quantitative research methods.1.2.3.4.5.23IUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCE(Source:(Zimmermann et al.,2020)Chapter 1|Levels of conflict over wildlifeConclusionUnderstanding the levels of conflict impacting a situation is crucial to designing sustainable solutions,by add

244、ressing the appropriate levels of human-wildlife conflict conflict affecting a situation.To achieve this,practitioners can:incorporate levels-of-conflict assessments in project planning;monitor conflict levels through quantitative and qualitative social research methods;select resolution strategies

245、that are appropriate to the conflict level and that do no harm;seek the help of outside actors if the research and/or conflict resolution experience necessary to help the situation fall beyond the realm of their expertise.Chapter 1|Levels of conflict over wildlifeIUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIF

246、E CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCE24What makes people want to work in wildlife conservation?Some people may be motivated by a desire to promote sustainable practices,help farmers protect their crops from elephants and other megafauna,help fishing communities secure a livelihood in the face of competition wi

247、th fish-eating marine mammals or perhaps help herders protect their livestock from carnivores.However,the primary,but not necessarily the only,motivation for many researchers,practitioners(government wildlife agencies and NGOs)and those working to influence conservation policy and practice(all hence

248、forth referred to as conservation actors)is a strong commitment to biodiversity conservation.Not surprisingly,therefore,much of the current research on human-wildlife conflicts,and the management agendas directed at them,focus on the animals actions and peoples complaints about the animals,with the

249、aim of changing the dynamics of the relationship between people and wildlife in order to facilitate biodiversity conservation(Hill,2017a;Montana et al.,2020).A key aspect that is often lacking in training for conservation science researchers and managers is that of positionality:an understanding of

250、how an individuals identity impacts and possibly prejudices their interpretation of the world,or how they might be seen by others(McLennan&Hill,2013).However,examining and acknowledging individual and institutional positionalities,i.e.individual motivations,value and belief systems,priorities and ag

251、endas,is central to understanding the intentional or unintentional impacts conservation actors can have on any human-wildlife conflict situation.Such examination and acknowledgement can also help to:a)clarify when and why conservation actors and other stakeholders may disagree over their respective

252、agendas and priorities;and b)explain why conservation actors are rarely able to act as third-party,neutral facilitators in human-wildlife conflicts.Conservation actors and positionalityThe role of theconservationistCatherine Hill,Vidya Athreya,John D.C.Linnell,Brian McQuinn,Stephen Redpath,Juliette

253、Young&Alexandra ZimmermannThe stakeholdersStakeholders in any conflict scenario are likely to be very diverse.For example,stakeholder groups in a typical rurally located human-wildlife conflict scenario could include some,or all,of the following:livestock herders,cultivators,local residents,Indigeno

254、us groups,hunters,wildlife guards,protected area managers,conservation NGO personnel and local dignitaries.However,the list of groups with a C H A P T E R 225IUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCEChapter 2|The role of the conservationistHuman-wildlife conflict mitigation requ

255、ires clear goals in other words,what outcome are we trying to achieve?For instance,are we simply striving to reduce the symptoms of a conflict,or encourage effective communication among actors involved in the conflict?And what does success in doing so look like?This goal setting needs to be carried

256、out collaboratively with all relevant stakeholders.In many cases conservation actors try to assume the role of mediator in these discussions,but this can often be problematic given that conservation actors are also stakeholders in human-wildlife conflict,and therefore are not neutral actors in these

257、 scenarios(Redpath et al.,2013).To be neutral means not taking sides in a conflict,i.e.not having a vested interest in any particular outcome;therefore,none of the stakeholders involved can be considered neutral.Alternatively,conservation actors might endeavour to behave impartially,treating all par

258、ties or stakeholders equally.While this might be possible in certain situations,there is an additional problem,because conservation actors are unlikely to be regarded as impartial by at least some of the stakeholder groups they interact with.All conservation actors need to be aware that,even if they

259、 consider themselves neutral,objective observers:1)they are stakeholders embedded in contested social settings,and therefore not truly neutral;and 2)even if they can behave impartially,this is not the way they are likely to be viewed by possible interest in,or influence on,the outcome of any mitigat

260、ion or management strategy can extend far beyond the spatial confines of the human-wildlife conflict,to include politicians and other policy makers,funders,rights-holders and citizens at both national and international levels(see Chapter 13,Working with stakeholders and communities).Indeed,we need t

261、o think more broadly and acknowledge the fact that conservation actors are all interested parties in these human-wildlife conflicts,i.e.they are also stakeholders with their own priorities,perspectives and agendas,as a consequence of their positionality and the variety of roles they may play.For exa

262、mple,calls to action for conservation scientists to link research findings directly with conservation action require researchers to straddle several roles,working as impartial researchers gathering data about an human-wildlife conflict and as partial conservationists working to implement a particula

263、r process or programme to address human-wildlife conflict.A further confounding factor in this already complex situation is that other stakeholder groups may perceive or interpret the roles of conservation actors differently from those of conservationists themselves.This can create additional challe

264、nges as stakeholders struggle to understand each others perspectives,motivations and actions.This can be detrimental to effective communication and trust building among the groups concerned.Furthermore,researchers,NGOs and wildlife management personnel working on human-wildlife conflicts need to nur

265、ture relationships with various interested parties,including local residents and government officials.They also need to reflect on how their presence is perceived and experienced by residents and state authorities,which if not carefully considered can trigger new or reinforce existing human-wildlife

266、 conflicts.This social actor influence and the consequent need for reflexivity is well documented by qualitative social scientists(Cresswell&Miller,2000;Hill,2017a).This influence is seldom recognised or written about in the conservation science literature,but it has significant implications for con

267、servation research and action(McLennan&Hill,2013;Moon,Adams,et al.,2019).Can conservation actors be neutral orimpartial in human-wildlife conflict?IUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCE26the other protagonists involved,who will recognise them as advancing conservation interes

268、ts.This has significant implications for trust building,transparency and conflict mitigation or conflict transformation processes,and needs to be thought through carefully during the process of developing appropriate strategies and procedures(see Chapter 17,Resolving conflicts between people).More s

269、pecifically,it is important for conservation actors to be fully aware that they cannot take on mediation roles that require the services of a neutral outside party to enable an impartial mediation process,thereby encouraging multiple stakeholder buy-in to the process.ConclusionIn most human-wildlife

270、 conflicts(and wider conservation conflicts),especially deep-rooted or sensitive cases,conservation actors need to:identify who the other stakeholder or interest groups are;be aware of how their own positionality influences their values,understanding,perceptions and priorities within any conflict sc

271、enario;be aware that as social actors they can,and do,inadvertently influence the ecological,conservation and social landscapes they work in;be clear about what their role is and how this might impact their goals,and try to be open and transparent about this;understand how they could be perceived by

272、 other parties involved in the conflict,and reflect on how other stakeholders might interpret their words and actions;be aware that as conservation actors they are unlikely to be considered neutral by other stakeholder groups,and that this can create barriers to trust building and effective mediatio

273、n between stakeholders;andbe prepared to bring in a neutral outside party when appropriate.Chapter 2|The role of the conservationist 27IUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCEThe question of whether or not to act to address human-wildlife conflict needs to be considered by acto

274、r type i.e.who is to intervene in the situation.The different actors might include,for example,conservation NGOs,development organisations,industry,government agencies,civil society organisations and local self-help groups.Different actors will have different reasons for wanting to intervene in an h

275、uman-wildlife conflict situation.These reasons might relate to species or area conservation,humanitarian or development issues,animal welfare,politics,business factors,or cultural or ceremonial considerations.While there may not be a conservation reason for intervening in a particular scenario invol

276、ving humans and wildlife initially,when government agencies and/or non-conservation NGOs become involved,they may create one.Conservation organisations need to keep this in mind when deciding whether to act or at which stage to intervene(see Chapter 2,The role of the conservationist).The conservatio

277、n reason for acting to address human-wildlife conflict does not need to be expressed solely in terms of the wildlife species involved in the conflict.For example,acting to reduce the impact of human-wildlife conflict around a protected area can help reduce antagonism towards that protected area and

278、thus help prevent such retaliatory acts as the deliberate setting of fires or destruction of ranger stations(Hedges,2006;Hill et al.,2002).The decision about whether to act should not be based just on the actual risk posed to peoples livelihoods,health or life,but should also take into account peopl

279、es perceptions of risk,including intrinsic fear and dread,such as that inspired by large carnivores and elephants(Dickman&Hazzah,2016).Even if the actual physical damage or opportunity costs suffered by people as a result of human-wildlife conflict are relatively small,peoples attitudes to the anima

280、ls involved might be extremely negative,and so there are likely to be significant consequences if the human-wildlife conflict is left unaddressed.Decisions about whether to act to address human-wildlife conflict should involve all appropriate stakeholders,including the people and groups affected by

281、the conflict,such as farmers,livestock owners and other local community members(see Chapter 13,Working with stakeholders and communities and Chapter 15,Planning and theory of change).Interventions:to act or not to act?Simon Hedges&Joshua M.PlotnikC H A P T E R 3IUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE

282、CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCE28Chapter 3|Interventions:to act or not to act?There are circumstances under which it may be inappropriate to act to address human-wildlife conflict,and where the decision to intervene or not should be carefully considered:When not to act1.Illegal activityOne of the more freq

283、uent reasons for not acting is if the human-wildlife conflict is affecting areas of illegal agriculture or illegal livestock grazing inside a protected area,or if the human-wildlife conflict is the result of other illegal activities.Some conservation NGOs have adopted a policy of only working with c

284、ommunities to help reduce human-wildlife conflict through reduction of crop or livestock losses(or compensation for or insurance against such losses)in legally farmed/settled areas because,for example,helping reduce human-wildlife conflict for people illegally growing crops inside protected areas co

285、uld encourage further loss of protected area land to illegal agriculture.In some cases,such encroachment may be supported by large agricultural companies or rich individuals,and the conservation NGOs do not want to facilitate or otherwise encourage their illegal activities inside protected areas.Ind

286、eed,doing so would put the NGOs in the position of breaking national laws.In such situations,it is preferable for conservation/human-wildlife conflict initiatives to work with communities to reduce illegal activities as a means to reducing human-wildlife conflict for example,by developing alternativ

287、e livelihoods and thus helping to reduce illegal resource collection within a protected area,potentially reducing the number of people attacked by dangerous animals.For non-conservation organisations,there may be a case for a different approach,but one should still be aware of the risks of facilitat

288、ing or otherwise encouraging illegal activities.2.Temporary situationsIt may also be appropriate not to work to reduce or otherwise mitigate the impacts of human-wildlife conflict(e.g.by implementing crop protection measures)if removal of the wildlife causing the human-wildlife conflict is planned i

289、n the near future for example,removal of pocketed or doomed wildlife populations,such as three male elephants trapped in a small forest block.In such a case,the removal of these animals is the human-wildlife conflict intervention,and thus no additional,short-term strategy development is warranted.3.

290、Deep-rooted conflictsIn many areas where spaces have been historically shared between potentially dangerous wildlife and humans,there might be underlying social or cultural relationships that are not viewed as conflict by the resident communities(see Chapter 10,How histories shape interactions).It i

291、s thus important to not act if we do not understand the underlying relationships.This could heighten the perception that conflict is instigated by researchers and conservationists who have not studied or understood the existing relationships between people and wildlife in that landscape(see Chapter

292、1,Levels of conflict over wildlife).It is also advisable to be cautious about intervening in situations of heightened political or social conflict,in which wildlife has become implicated as a proxy for other conflicts.Endangered species should be protected,but it would be best to participate in broa

293、der conflict transformation activities and attempt to establish legitimacy for conservation actions before intervening(see Chapter 17,Resolving conflicts between people).29IUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCEChapter 3|Interventions:to act or not to act?The question of when

294、to act is a multifaceted one.Consequently,several factors need to be considered,including the severity of the human-wildlife conflict situation,animal ecology and behaviour,the human dimensions,the type of action planned,the amount and quality of information available,and the extent and nature of st

295、akeholder consultation and involvement(see Chapter 7,Animal behaviour,Chapter 8,Attitudes,tolerance and human behaviour and Chapter 13,Working with stakeholders and communities).In addition,an important principle to keep in mind is that preventing conflict is often more effective than trying to cure

296、 it;it is thus better to act early to prevent human-wildlife conflict starting or becoming serious.When to act will depend to a large extent on the type(s)of action planned.For example,land use planning that takes into account the needs of wildlife to prevent human-wildlife conflict is by definition

297、 an action needed very early in the human-wildlife conflict management planning cycle(see Chapter 21,Planning across landscapes).In contrast,crop/livestock loss insurance schemes to mitigate the impact of human-wildlife conflict,for example,are more likely to be needed for already established human-

298、wildlife conflict problems.For chronic(long-established)human-wildlife conflict situations,the following considerations will tend to affect the timing of actions:When to actCollect information about the nature and extent of the situation,including the sociopolitical context and the various stakehold

299、ers perspectives.(See also Chapter 8,Attitudes,tolerance and human behaviour,Chapter 10,How histories shape interactions,Chapter 12,Governing human-wildlife conflicts and Chapter 19,Social science research.)Gather information about the ecology and behaviour of the species involved.(See also Chapter

300、6,Natural drivers of human-wildlife conflict,Chapter 7,Animal behaviour and Chapter 20,Ecological research.)Ensure that there is information about the efficacy of any proposed technical interventions,as well as rates of adoption(and non-adoption)of the proposed interventions from other comparable si

301、tes.(See also Chapter 4,Avoiding unintended consequences,Chapter 15,Planning and theory of change and Chapter 27,Preventing damage by wildlife.)1.Act only when sufficient information is available:It is essential that actions to prevent,reduce or otherwise mitigate human-wildlife conflict are only ta

302、ken after these have been planned jointly with the stakeholder directly affected(e.g.farmers,local community)and other stakeholders involved(e.g.local business,conservation projects).The uptake and sustainability of human-wildlife conflict management measures is likely to be much greater if stakehol

303、ders are involved in the selection,design and implementation of those measures(Denninger Snyder&Rentsch,2020;Gunaryadi et al.,2017).(See also Chapter 13,Working with stakeholders and communities and Chapter 16,Dialogue:a process for conflict resolution.)2.Act only when there has been appropriate sta

304、keholder involvement:For NGOs and universities,the requisite ethical approvals need to be in place for any work involving wildlife and human subjects.Relevant governmental permissions,for example to work in protected 3.Act only when the necessary permissions have been secured:IUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON

305、HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCE30ConclusionIt is necessary for all human-wildlife conflict reduction or mitigation interventions to have clear timelines and funding strategies,and for all stakeholders to be aware of these.Inadequately funded interventions may cause more problems than no inte

306、rventions at all.Project managers(whether from government agencies,NGOs or other organisations)need to plan for contingencies,for long-term sustainability and for an exit strategy(Karidozo et al.,2016).Exit strategies,such as the human-wildlife conflict reduction/mitigation project will run with ext

307、ernal support for 5 years or until its methods have been fully adopted by the affected communities and the project is clearly sustainable,whichever is the shorter period,need to be developed with,and agreed by,all stakeholders.areas,are also necessary prerequisites for groups or projects requiring s

308、uch permissions.Where traditional or other local authorities are involved,and on communal or private land,permission must be sought,ethical consent acquired and,where relevant,the principles and practices of free,prior and informed consent(FPIC)should be followed.31IUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDL

309、IFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCEChapter 3|Interventions:to act or not to act?When planning what action(s)to implement in the management of the human-wildlife conflict it is important to provide all reasonable efforts to prevent harmful outcomes and that all stakeholders are aware of,and accept,the risks

310、 involved(see Chapter 3,Interventions:to act or not to act?).Being aware of what these unintended outcomes may be during the planning stages allows stakeholders to not only identify these issues early in the implementation phase if they arise,but also to co-develop plans to address them.It is crucia

311、l to be aware of what the successful application of an action may look like,not only in the local context,but for stakeholders in the wider region.This process of considering possible unintended outcomes needs to take place during the planning phase,before implementation of the action,and ideally du

312、ring development of a theory of change(see Chapter 15,Planning and theory of change).For example,by clarifying the assumptions of an action in the theory of change,potential unintended consequences can be identified.However,not all unintended outcomes are predictable or negative;nor can all conseque

313、nces ever be predicted fully.This chapter highlights some unintended outcomes(both predictable and unpredictable)that can occur when implementing an action(Table 2),and provides guidance on how to avoid,reduce or plan for these outcomes to ensure successful management of the human-wildlife conflict

314、situation in both the short and long term.Avoiding unintendedconsequencesJames Stevens,Simon Hedges&Juliette YoungC H A P T E R 4Wire fence used to act as a barrier to propertyExample actionTable 2.Examples of unintended outcomes that may arise because of an action Possible unintended outcomeFence w

315、ire stolen and used for snares(Lindsey et al.,2012)Virtual fencing and shock collars used to deter wildlife entering certain areasCollared animal becomes trapped on the wrong side of the virtual fence,causing extensive damageBeehive fence used to deter elephantsWildlife(e.g.honey badger in Africa,su

316、n bear in Sumatra)attracted to beehives and damages them,impacting efficacy and also creating safety concerns for people,at least in the bear example(Johnson(2019)Hedges,m.)Barrier used to reduce access to propertyWildlife utilise the barrier to create a safe haven,which farmers cannot reach,and use

317、 that haven to stage additional foraging visits(e.g.baboons using fences in the Shimba Hills,Kenya)IUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCE32Chapter 4|Avoiding unintended consequencesSome actions are intended to reduce the severity and frequency of impacts caused by wildlife.Un

318、derstandably,the desired outcome would be that impacts on the stakeholder group(s)involved are reduced and any human-wildlife conflict driven threats to wildlife and wildlife habitat are reduced or eliminated.However,if the wildlife in question is exhibiting the conflict-causing behaviour for reason

319、s such as to ensure its survival,resource preference or ease(see Chapter 7,Animal behaviour),reducing the opportunities for carrying out this behaviour at a certain spatial location or time may result in the wildlife simply shifting to another location or time and repeating the behaviour there or th

320、en(Dickman,2010).For example,while fencing may provide a solution to small-scale crop foraging by elephants,it may result in more severe foraging in other areas as the elephants are displaced(Osipova et al.,2018).Likewise,measures to reduce crop foraging during a previously established peak time may

321、 result in the animals switching to foraging earlier or later.Under some scenarios,the management decision may be to translocate the individual animal(s)to a new location.However,unless planned carefully,the animal(s)may cause impacts in the new location or return to the original location,causing co

322、nflict en route(Athreya et al.,2011;Bradley et al.,2005;Fernando et al.,2012)(see Chapter 25,Animal capture and translocation).Reducing impacts in one location or during a certain time might appear successful.However,if the impacts are displaced to another location,the situation is clearly not succe

323、ssfully managed across the wider landscape.This imposes the impact onto other communities,and is likely to increase the severity of human-human conflict by creating or fostering animosity between stakeholders(Glikman et al.,2022b)(see Chapter 1,Levels of conflict over wildlife).Shark net used to blo

324、ck access to recreational areasNon-target species become trapped in the net(Meeuwig&Ferreira,2014)Alert system to indicate presence of wildlifeA high number of alerts may indicate to stakeholders that wildlife has a greater presence in the area than perceived,resulting in calls for further action(We

325、ise et al.,2019)Supplementary feeding of wild animals to deter them foraging on human resourcesWildlife becomes reliant on and habituated to feeding,and loses fear of humans;the animals may acquire a taste for this food and target it further(Steyaert et al.,2014)Adults guard fields during the night.

326、Children are required to guard field during the day,impacting their school attendance(Mackenzie&Ahabyona,2012);adults unable to gain further employment during the dayDisplacement of the problemSome actions to reduce human-wildlife conflict may require people to get close to potentially dangerous wil

327、d animals.For example,providing farmers with tents or torches to help them guard crops or livestock may require farmers or herders to remain in their fields or with their livestock during the night to scare off the problem animal.This requirement for the farmer to actively repel the potentially dang

328、erous animals(such as elephants and large carnivores)places them at greater risk of coming into contact,increasing the risk of injury or death for both parties(Barua,2014).Such Risks to people 33IUCN SSC GUIDELINES ON HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCE(Source:Compiled by the chapter authors)Cha

329、pter 4|Avoiding unintended consequencesdangerous interactions can also result in high levels of stress,with negative effects on mental health(Jadhav&Barua,2012).If an action results in people getting close to dangerous wild animals,understanding animal behaviour and how to behave in these situations

330、 is crucial to ensuring safety.Preparation of safety guidelines,informed by that understanding,should be a prerequisite.Additionally,actions to reduce human-wildlife conflict may entail other risks to peoples health and safety for example,night guarding increases the risk of exposure to insect-borne

331、 diseases(Barua et al.,2013).It is important for implementing stakeholders to be aware of such potential risks and to be supported in the mitigation of them.For any action taken to reduce impacts from wildlife,the welfare and survival of the animals causing damage need careful attention.Actions that

332、 aim to move one or more animals from one location to another(see Chapter 25,Animal capture and translocation)should ensure that the new location is suitable for the animals before any translocation takes place(IUCN SSC,2013).It is crucial that there are sufficient resources available,that there is

333、space for additional individuals of that species and that potential for impacts at the new location are low(ideally non-existent)(Massei et al.,2010).Translocation may cause social disruption and potentially aggravate the severity of human-wildlife conflict due to the animals disorientation and lack of familiarity with release areas(de la Torre et al.,2021)(for other unintended consequences,see Ch