DistantNews
Support us
🇳🇵 Nepal /Conflict & Security

Human-wildlife conflict or human-human conflict?

From Kathmandu Post · () English

Summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.

At a glance

Analysis Sources not specified Context piece
  • Incidents of elephants destroying homes and snow leopards killing livestock in Nepal highlight a debate over whether these are truly human-wildlife conflicts.
  • Critics argue that framing these events as conflicts with wildlife obscures the role of government policies and decisions in shaping human-animal encounters.
  • Shifting the focus to policy allows for more effective solutions by addressing the political and institutional factors that contribute to these dangerous situations.

Incidents of elephants smashing houses and snow leopards preying on livestock across Nepal are prompting public discussion, but the framing of these events as "human-wildlife conflicts" is being challenged.

When we say human–wildlife conflict, the phrase portrays wildlife as an active, intentional opponent as if monkeys deliberately raid crops to impoverish farmers, tigers intentionally kill livestock to punish herders, or elephants consciously destroy homes to create human misery.

— Article AuthorCritiquing the common framing of human-animal encounters.

Critics argue that labeling these encounters as conflicts with wildlife portrays animals as acting with hostility or political intent, which is inaccurate. Wildlife acts out of necessity, such as seeking accessible food sources. This framing, they contend, distracts from the real drivers: the policies, laws, and decisions made by governments, conservation agencies, and international donors.

Animals do not act out of hostility, revenge or political intent.

— Article AuthorExplaining the natural behavior of wildlife.

These institutions shape the relationships between people and wildlife, often through patrols and restrictions, yet their decision-makers may not live in the communities most affected. These communities, dependent on farming and living near forests, bear the daily risks of crop loss, livestock predation, and threats to their safety. They often have limited influence over conservation decisions despite facing the consequences.

Conflict is portrayed as a clash between people and nature, not between people and people.

— Article AuthorHighlighting the problematic framing of these events.

Recognizing that government priorities and policies are central to these seemingly natural conflicts could lead to fundamentally different solutions. The shift in perception is illustrated by a farmer's comment: "Because the government pays. Those are the government’s rhinos." This suggests that when compensation is available, the conflict is seen not as a natural occurrence but as a consequence of government management.

Because the government pays. Those are the government’s rhinos.

— Farmer in ChitwanIllustrating the shift in perception from natural occurrence to government responsibility.
DistantNews Editorial

Originally published by Kathmandu Post. Summarized and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.

More Stories

From Our Blog