Non-Violent Techniques for Human-Wildlife Conflict Resolution

Abstract

For many centuries, humans and wildlife species have co-existed through domestication and protection of habitats. However, because of competition due to a perception of limited natural resources, the Human-Wildlife Conflict (‘HWC’) has become a serious global issue, including in Bhutan, posing a grave concern to the conservationist, agriculturist, public and policy makers worldwide. This chapter provides a situational analysis of the HWC in the global context, and its specific importance to the prevailing circumstances in certain parts of Bhutan, pertaining to the policies and strategies, preventive, mitigation, and response measures of such conflicts. Simultaneously, a detailed study of the HWC was conducted at Jomotshangka Wildlife Sanctuary, which encompasses three types of vegetation. Assessment of a global literature review and good practices, and results of a case study have been used to develop a road map of the HWC resolution in Bhutan using non-violent deployable techniques and Buddhist perspectives as preventive and mitigation measures.

Annexes

Annexure 3.1: Indicators of the strategic outcomes of people, wildlife, assets and habitat

People	Number of wildlife killed in retaliation
	Number of humans killed or injured
	Number of wildlife crime cases recorded (snaring, trapping, poisoning, electrocution, hunting, etc.)
	Human population, density and growth
	Number and cost of livestock killed or injured
	Area, cost and type of crops lost or damaged
	Number of reported incidents
	Number of verified conflict incidents
	Average time to respond to an event
	Number of insurance claims made
	Number of innovation grants
	Number of national policy mechanisms enacted to support HWC
	Proportion of areas/landscapes/sites effectively covered by trained Response Teams
Wildlife	Endangered species occupancy and density
	Prey density
	Number of endangered species killed in poaching
	Number of endangered species injured through poaching attempts
	Number of problem animals removed/euthanized
	Number of wildlife crime cases recorded (snaring, trapping, poisoning, electrocution, hunting, etc.)
	Number of straying species outside the protected area
	Number of verified conflict incidents
	By midway mark (end 2019)
	Revenue accruing for site-based management through a local green economic mechanism
	Cost of barriers installed
	Community attitudes towards wildlife
Assets	Number of wildlife killed in retaliation
	Number of humans killed or injured
	Number of wildlife crime cases recorded (snaring, trapping, poisoning, electrocution, hunting, etc.)
	Human population, density and growth
	Number and cost of livestock killed or injured
	Area, cost and type of crops lost or damaged
	Number of reported incidents
	Number of verified conflict incidents
	Average time to respond to an event
	Number of insurance claims made
	Number of innovation grants
	Number of national policy mechanisms enacted to support HWC
	Proportion of areas/landscapes/sites effectively covered by trained Response Teams
Habitat	Area of natural habitat
	Number of natural habitat patches
	Edge distance of natural habitat patches
	Rate of forest loss/gain
	Distribution and coverage of invasive species
	Area converted from natural habitat to human use
	Number of salt licks and water bodies in natural areas under improved management
	Number and frequency of incidents involving illegal forest clearing
	Reports from community patrols (coverage, intensity, arrests, etc.)
	Spatial plans completed and approved

Annex 3.2: Criteria used to determine strategic outcomes

Strategic Outcome	Strategic Intent	Criteria	Effectiveness	Primary element
Safe Person	Does not hunt wildlife	Laws are enacted to protect wildlife.	1: Laws are by personal agreement only with no means to be enforced;	Policy
			2: Laws are in place and with minimal physical, financial and human resources for effectiveness enforcement and punishment, and are generally known by affected people
			3: Laws are in place with less than 75% of the physical, financial and human resources needed for effective enforcement and punishment and laws are well known by affected people
			4: Laws are stipulated and recognized by national government, and have extensive means to be enforced everywhere.
Safe Person	Does not hunt wildlife	Laws enforced by any officially recognized entity: rangers, citizen scientists, patrol units, military, etc.	1: Patrolling is seldom done	Prevention
			2: Patrolling is up to 4 days p/mth
			3: Patrolling is 5–14 days p/mth
			4: Patrolling is 15 days or more p/mth
Safe Person	Does not hunt wildlife	People are complying with the law.	1: Wildlife crime incidents have increased over time	Prevention
			2: Are steady
			3: Have decreased over time
			4: Minimal to zero wildlife crime occurs
Safe Person	Does not hunt wildlife	Judicial processes are fair.	1: Following arrest judicial processes ensure fair trials and prosecution in 0–25% of cases	Policy
			2: … in 25–50% of cases
			3: … in 50–75% of cases
			4: … in 75–100% of cases
Safe Person	Participates as partners for protection	Communities participate in patrolling, policing, and monitoring of community forest areas.	1: 0–25% local participation	Prevention
			2: 25–50% of communities have people participating
			3: 50–75 % of communities have people participating
			4: 75–100 % of communities have people participating
Safe Person	Participates as partners for protection	A locally applicable insurance/relief/compensation programme for HWC is operational.	1: 0–25% local participation	Mitigation
			2: 25–50% of communities have people participating
			3: 50–75 % of communities have people participating
			4: 75–100 % of communities have people participating
Safe Person	Participates as partners for protection	Personal informant networks are operational.	1: Zero patrols are conducted based on intelligence each month	Prevention
			2: 5% of patrols are conducted based on intelligence from the informant network each month
			3: Up to 10% of patrols are conducted based on intelligence from the informant network each month
			4: More than 10% of patrols are conducted based on intelligence from the informant network each month
Safe Person	Participates as partners for protection	An anonymous or public informant network is in place and operational.	1: Low usage and knowledge of it locally	Prevention
			2: Local knowledge of it and low usage
			3: Good local knowledge and growing use of it and leading to seizures
			4: High usage and leading to an increase in seizures or patrols
Safe Person	Does not venture into, forage, or conduct livelihoods activities inside designated PAs	Are people venturing into, foraging, or conduct livelihoods activities inside the PA?	1: Illegal activities inside the PA have increased over time	Prevention
			2: … have remained steady over time
			3: … have decreased over time
			4: … are minimal or non-existent
Safe Person	Uses non protected forest resources sustainably	Is resource extraction and use sustainable in the buffer zone or community forest?	Livelihoods activities for subsistence or income OUTSIDE the PA:	Prevention
			1: Are increasingly intense and have led to extensive forest and species loss
			2: Are steady and are leading to gradual forest and species loss
			3: Have decreased over time, with forest resources able to recover from losses
			4: Are minimal and forest and resource use is balanced with recovery
Safe Person	Is not directly exposed to conflict	Are people safe from injury or death by wildlife?	Incidents of human injury or death by wildlife is:	Prevention
			1: … increasing over time
			2: … steady
			3: … decreasing
			4: … minimal or zero
Safe Person	Conducts wildlife-friendly farming	Livestock are guarded and herded during the day (6 am–6 pm)	1: Number of livestock killed during the day has increased over time	Prevention
			2: … has remained steady over time
			3: … has decreased over time
			4: … is almost non-existent now
Safe Person	Conducts wildlife-friendly farming	Are livestock fenced / enclosed / tethered at night? (6 pm–6 am)	1: Number of livestock killed during the night is increasing	Prevention
			2: … has remained steady over time
			3: … has decreased over time
			4: … is almost non-existent now
Safe Person	Conducts wildlife-friendly farming	Locally applicable grazing areas are complied with.	1: No agreed grazing area exists	Prevention
			2: Number of livestock killed outside grazing areas has increased over time
			3: Number of livestock killed outside grazing areas has decreased over time
			4: Minimal or zero livestock are killed or injured outside grazing areas. Grazing areas are in place, have herding, and guarding at night.
Safe Person	Conducts wildlife-friendly farming	Crops are consistently guarded.	1: Crop loss has remained high or is increasing over time	Prevention
			2: … has remained steady over time
			3: … has decreased over time
			4: … is almost non-existent now
Safe Person	Conducts wildlife-friendly farming	Do crops have barriers separating them from habitat?	1: 75–100% of crops raided do not have barriers	Prevention
			2: 50–75%
			3: 25–50%
			4: 0–25%. The majority of crops have effective barriers and are not being raided.
Safe Person	Conducts wildlife-friendly farming	Are crops given extra protection during peak HWC times?	1: Crop loss during peak conflict times has increased over time	Prevention
			2: … has been steady over time
			3: … has decreased over time
			4: … is minimal or almost zero
Safe Person	Has the ability, means and right to implement preventative measures	Do communities have the skills to put in place preventative measures?	1: People use only their existing skills knowledge	Prevention
			2: use mostly their existing skills but have access to some information and lessons from elsewhere using local means
			3: have access to some lessons and ideas and techniques from other places using media sources and online
			4: have extensive access to lessons and techniques from external sources using media, online sources, and also have access to training and workshops
Safe Person	Has the ability, means and right to implement preventative measures	Funds are available for local people to develop their own solutions in prevention.	1: People use their own money	Prevention
			2: People use mostly their own money and borrow from relatives or micro-credit
			3: People combine their own money with micro credit loans, and have access to some grants for prevention
			4: People can readily access micro credit, grants from innovations funds or from government, to put in place preventative measures
Safe Person	Has the ability, means and right to implement preventative measures	Farmers and communities have the right to modify the land for prevention.	1: People are not able to make any modifications to the land at all	Prevention
			2: People can make only few modifications to the land
			3: People can make many modifications to the land based on local agreement
			4: People have complete rights over their land and can do whatever they choose on it
Safe Person	Has the ability, means and right to implement preventative measures	There are channels / mechanisms to exchange and expand successful preventative measures locally to be demonstrated & are supported to be expanded locally and/or applied elsewhere.	1: Preventative measures stay just at a household or village level;	Prevention
			2: A few measures have been expanded within the immediate area;
			3: Some measures have been replicated outside the immediate area;
			4: Some measures have been given further grants and expanded locally, adopted by other villages, or adopted by government or private sector as a solution.
Safe Person	Has safe working environments, agricultural fields and life styles	Managers and employers of plantations have committed to safe working practices.	Human injury or death inside plantations or the adjacent habitat	Prevention
			1: has increased over time
			2: is steady
			3: has decreased over time
			4: is minimal or zero
Safe Person	Has safe working environments, agricultural fields and life styles	Managers and employers of National Park, military or police staff have committed to safe working practices.	Human injury or death inside National Parks and protected areas for employed staff:	Prevention
			1: has increased over time
			2: is steady
			3: has decreased over time
			4: is minimal or zero
Safe Person	Has safe working environments, agricultural fields and life styles	People avoid high-risk areas and high-risk times in their daily lives to minimize HWC events and exposure to contact.	1: Human injury or death when doing non-livelihoods activities (going to school, bathroom, playing, etc.) has increased over time	Prevention
			2: has remained steady over time
			3: has decreased over time
			4: is now minimal or zero
Safe Person	Has household incomes not significantly sensitive to conflict	Income diversification activities are underway across communities.	1: HWC incidents negatively impact 75–100% of household incomes	Mitigation
			2: 50–75% of household incomes
			3: 25–50% of household incomes
			4: 0–25% of household incomes
Safe Person	Has household incomes not significantly sensitive to conflict	Alternative livelihood programmes are in place.	1: 75–100% of people depend on livelihoods, which are prone to HWC	Mitigation
			2: 50–75%
			3: 25–50%
			4: 0–25% of people depend solely on livelihoods prone to HWC. They have several other income streams to fall back on
Safe Person	Has household incomes not significantly sensitive to conflict	Projects or programmes are underway to help local communities access markets, or do training, or access jobs.	1: Very few people are participating in any programmes other than basic subsistence livelihoods	Mitigation
			2: Participation in non-natural resources related livelihoods is low
			3: Participation in non-natural resources related livelihoods is high and people are increasingly getting jobs outside or selling goods to markets further afield
			4: Many people derive incomes from jobs and services that are not linked to HWC
Safe Person	Participates in a conflict-reporting mechanism	A locally applicable reporting mechanism is in place.	1: Reports are either never made or made 1–6 months from event	Response
			2: Reports are made 1 week-1 month from event
			3: Reports are made 1–7 days of the event
			4: Reports are made within 0 hours–1 day of the event
Safe Person	Participates in a conflict-reporting mechanism	All human injuries and death events reported.	1: 0–33% of events are reported	Response
			2: 33–66% of events are reported
			3: 66–90% of events are reported
			4: 90–100% of events are reported
Safe Person	Participates in a conflict-reporting mechanism	All livestock loss events reported.	1: 0–33% of events are reported	Response
			2: 33–66% of events are reported
			3: 66–90% of events are reported
			4: 90–100% of events are reported
Safe Person	Participates in a conflict-reporting mechanism	All crop loss events reported.	1: 0–33% of events are reported	Response
			2: 33–66% of events are reported
			3: 66–90% of events are reported
			4: 90–100% of events are reported
Safe Person	Participates in a conflict-reporting mechanism	All structural damage and loss events reported.	1: 0–33% of events are reported	Response
			2: 33–66% of events are reported
			3: 66–90% of events are reported
			4: 90–100% of events are reported
Safe Person	Participates in a conflict-reporting mechanism	All retaliatory killing events reported.	1: 0–33% of events are reported	Response
			2: 33–66% of events are reported
			3: 66–90% of events are reported
			4: 90–100% of events are reported
Safe Person	Is supported by locally based Response Teams	Response Teams are in place, equipped, trained and functioning.	1: Response times are over 1 week	Response
			2: 2–7 days
			3: 1–2 days
			4: 0–24 hours
Safe Person	Has access to a conflict information system	Information system is in place, is linked to Effective Monitoring, and regular public reports are made available.	1: Information on conflict events and trends is disseminated to local people once a year	UtC
			2: 1–3 times per year
			3: 3–12 times per year
			4: More than once a month
Safe Person	Contributes to or adheres to an HWC management system / plan	A recognized (by communities and government) HWC management is in place.	1. There is no coordination for HWC. Individuals just do their own protection measures.	Policy
			2: There is coordination within village level only
			3: There is coordination between villages
			4: There is coordination at the district or higher level for HWC through a plan
Safe Person	Participates in community events for conservation	Ongoing education programme is in place re conservation and species.	1. 0–33% of people in target areas participate	Prevention
			2: 33–66% of people in target areas participate
			3: 66–90% of people in target areas participate
			4: 90–100% of people in target areas participate
Safe Person	Does not feel fearful undergoing their daily lives	A system is in place to understand and reduce local sentiments around conflict.	1. Communities have multiple areas off limits and daily activities are increasingly curtailed due to fear	UtC
			2. Communities have multiple areas off limits and daily activities are sometimes curtailed due to fear
			3. Communities have a few areas off limits and daily activities are rarely curtailed due to fear
			4. Communities have very few areas off limits and daily activities are never curtailed due to fear
Safe Wildlife	Wildlife are not hunted, and their habitat secured	Laws are enacted to protect wildlife.	1: Laws are by personal agreement only with no means to be enforced;	Policy
			2: Laws are in place and with minimal physical, financial and human resources for effectiveness enforcement and punishment, and are generally known by affected people
			3: Laws are in place with less than 75% of the physical, financial and human resources needed for effective enforcement and punishment and laws are well known by affected people
			4: Laws are stipulated and recognized by national government, and have extensive means to be enforced everywhere.
Safe Wildlife	Wildlife are not hunted, and their habitat secured	Laws enforced by any officially recognized entity: rangers, citizen scientists, patrol units, military, etc.	1: Patrolling is seldom done	Prevention
			2: Patrolling is up to 4 days p/mth
			3: Patrolling is 5–14 days p/mth
			4: Patrolling is 15 days or more p/mth
Safe Wildlife	Wildlife are not hunted, and their habitat secured	People are complying with the law.	1: Wildlife crime incidents have increased over time	Prevention
			2: Are steady
			3: Have decreased over time
			4: Minimal-to-zero-wildlife crime occurs
Safe Wildlife	Wildlife are not hunted, and their habitat secured	Judicial processes are fair.	1: Following arrest judicial processes ensure fair trials and prosecution in 0–25% of cases	Policy
			2: … in 25–50% of cases
			3: … in 50–75% of cases
			4: … in 75–100% of cases
Safe Wildlife	Are separated from people, livestock and crops and rarely stray into human habitation	Locally applicable barriers, fencing, early warning systems and zoning are in place and functioning.	1: Conflict events outside PA have increased over time	Prevention
			2: Have remained steady over time
			3: Have decreased over time
			4: Are minimal or almost zero
Safe Wildlife	Can co-exist with people	Wildlife is perceived positively locally and support for their protection is linked to livelihoods or community development.	1: Zero livelihoods actions are linked to wildlife, habitat or services;	Prevention
			2: Some actions are linked to wildlife, and habitat;
			3: Many actions are linked to wildlife and habitat;
			4: Almost all actions are linked to wildlife and habitat conservation.
Safe Wildlife	Can co-exist with people	Wildlife are not being killed in retaliation for, or to prevent conflict events.	1: Wildlife are increasingly killed, poisoned	Prevention
			2: Wildlife killings are steady
			3: …are decreasing
			4: …are zero or minimal
Safe Wildlife	Are supported by locally based Response Teams	Response Teams are in place, equipped, trained and functioning.	1: Response times are over 1 week	Response
			2: 2–7 days
			3: 1–2 days
			4: 0–24 hours
Safe Wildlife	Have a secure, connected and healthy habitat	Wildlife habitat is protected under law or local agreement.	1: Laws are by personal agreement only with no means to be enforced	Policy
			2: Laws are in place and with minimal structure for enforcement and punishment, and are generally known by affected people
			3: Laws are in place with substantial means for enforcement and punishment and well known by affected people
			4: Laws are stipulated and recognized by national government, have extensive means to be enforced.
Safe Wildlife	Have a secure, connected and healthy habitat	Linear infrastructure (fences, train lines, roads, etc.) are not exacerbating HWC.	1: Wildlife are increasingly being killed or injured on or at linear infrastructure	Prevention
			2: Wildlife deaths or injury at linear infra are steady
			3: Wildlife deaths or injury at linear infra are decreasing over time
			4: Wildlife deaths or injury at linear infra are minimal or zero.
Safe Wildlife	Have a secure, connected and healthy habitat	Movement corridors are present that allow wildlife to move safely between habitats	1: Wildlife are increasingly being killed or injured in unprotected areas they are moving in	Prevention
			2: Wildlife deaths or injury in unprotected areas are steady
			3: Wildlife deaths or injury in unprotected areas are decreasing over time
			4: Wildlife deaths or injury in unprotected areas are minimal or zero.
Safe Wildlife	Have a secure, connected and healthy habitat	Habitat is healthy and supports maintenance of wildlife populations.	1: Wildlife are increasingly straying into human fields and settlement areas	Prevention
			2: … straying is steady
			3: straying is decreasing over time
			4: straying is minimal or zero.
Safe Wildlife	Are no less secure as they exit the area or cross borders	Wildlife have similar level of protection and habitat as they move between the immediate area and outside.	1: Wildlife are highly vulnerable and almost certain to come into conflict / be killed / hunted / poached if they leave the site.	Policy
			2: Some individuals will come into conflict / be killed/ hunted / poached if they leave the site.
			3: Few individuals will come into conflict / be killed / hunted / poached if they leave the site.
			4: No individuals are likely to come into conflict nor vulnerable to be killed if they leave the site.
Safe Assets	Are supported by government policy	Household incomes protected by government in the event of natural disaster, disease, or HWC through a compensation / relief / insurance scheme.	1: No national policy or mechanism is in place to compensate for loss of assets	Policy
			2: A national policy is in place but resources are lacking for its effective delivery
			3: A national policy is in place and resources available, but delivery is: not comprehensive; inconsistent; or is delayed in many cases
			4: A national policy is in place and resources available and delivery is effective and timely
Safe Assets	Are wildlife-friendly	Livestock are guarded and herded during the day (6 am–6 pm)	1: Number of livestock killed during the day has increased over time	Prevention
			2: … has remained steady over time
			3: … has decreased over time
			4: … is almost non-existent now
Safe Assets	Are wildlife-friendly	Are livestock fenced / enclosed / tethered at night? (6 pm–6 am)	1: Number of livestock killed during the night is increasing	Prevention
			2: … has remained steady over time
			3: … has decreased over time
			4: … is almost non-existent now
Safe Assets	Are wildlife-friendly	Locally applicable grazing areas are complied with.	1: No agreed grazing area exists	Prevention
			2: Number of livestock killed outside grazing areas has increased over time
			3: Number of livestock killed outside grazing areas has decreased over time
			4: Minimal or zero livestock are killed or injured outside grazing areas. Grazing areas are in place, have herding, and guarding at night.
Safe Assets	Are wildlife-friendly	Crops are consistently guarded.	1: Crop loss has remained high or is increasing over time	Prevention
			2: … has remained steady over time
			3: … has decreased over time
			4: … is almost non-existent now
Safe Assets	Are wildlife-friendly	Do crops have barriers separating them from habitat? Consider the crops that are most exposed – i.e. those next to the natural habitat.	1: 75–100% of crops raided do not have barriers	Prevention
			2: 50–75%
			3: 25–50%
			4: 0–25%. The majority of crops have effective barriers and are not being raided.
Safe Assets	Enhanced farming practices are supported	There is exploration of improved livestock breeds, management, and crops and techniques.	Livestock that are new, or managed in new ways:	Prevention
			1: Have been increasingly lost over time
			2: … have been lost steadily over time
			3: … have been lost decreasingly over time
			4: … are minimally lost or not at all
Safe Assets	Enhanced farming practices are supported	There is exploration of using improved management, and crops and techniques.	Crops that are new, or managed in new ways:	Prevention
			1: Have been increasingly lost over time
			2: … have been lost steadily over time
			3: … have been lost decreasingly over time
			4: … are minimally lost or not at all
Safe Assets	Invasive species are cleared or managed	A programme or management plan for weeds is in place.	1: is ad hoc and rarely done;	Prevention
			2: is planned and sometimes done;
			3: is planned and done seasonally;
			4: is planned, done regularly and sometimes is a source of revenue for local people
Safe Assets	Invasive species are cleared or managed	A policy is in place to actively control invasive animal species.	1: No agreed policy or mechanism is in place to allow for active management	Policy
			2: An agreed policy or mechanism is in place but is never acted on
			3: … is sometimes activated
			4: … is activated based on local agreements or as per national policy
Safe Assets	Invasive species are cleared or managed	Activities to actively control invasive wildlife species is in place.	1: Invasive species are never actively controlled	Prevention
			2: A national policy is in place but is never acted on
			3: A national policy is in place and is sometimes activated
			4: A national policy is in place and is regularly activated
Safe Assets	Structures are wildlife friendly	Physical structures, property and equipment are constructed, situated and managed to minimize damage from, and attractiveness to wildlife.	1: Structures are increasingly damaged by wildlife;	Prevention
			2: Wildlife damage to structures is steady;
			3: Wildlife damage to structures in decreasing;
			4: Wildlife damage to structures is minimal or almost zero.
Safe Habitat	Is protected	Laws are enacted to protect habitat.	1: Laws are by personal agreement only with no means to be enforced;	Policy
			2: Laws are in place and with minimal structure for enforcement and punishment, and are generally known by affected people;
			3: Laws are in place with substantial means for enforcement and punishment and well known by affected people;
			4: Laws are stipulated and recognized by national government, have extensive means to be enforced.
Safe Habitat	Is protected	Laws are enforced through recognized means.	1: Patrolling is seldom done;	Prevention
			2: Patrolling is 0–4 days p/mth;
			3: Patrolling is 5–14 days p/mth;
			4: Patrolling is 15 days or more p/mth
Safe Habitat	Is protected	Habitat protection is effective.	National park:	Prevention
			1: Habitat loss has increased over time
			2: Habitat loss has remained stable
			3: Habitat loss has decreased over time
			4: Habitat loss is zero
Safe Habitat	Is protected	Natural habitat is not being converted.	Natural forest and habitat:	Prevention
			1: Rate of conversion of remaining natural habitat has increased over time
			2: Conversion rates are stable
			3: Conversion rates have decreased over time, with patches of reforestation
			4: Conversion is minimal or zero, with multiple areas of reforestation exist
Safe Habitat	Is represented in a Spatial Plan for the area	A spatial or land-use plan is operational for the area.	1: No spatial plan exists.	Prevention
			2: Exists, but only at village/community level, but has not been formalized by relevant government planners and decision makers;
			3: Is at right scale and is accepted by government and communities but not incorporated within planning or sector plans;
			4: is accepted and reflected in government and sector plans.
Safe Habitat	Is not shrinking or fragmenting	Habitat size is staying the same.	The area of natural habitat:	Prevention
			1: Is almost zero
			2: Has decreased over time
			3: Has remained steady over time
			4: Has increased over time
Safe Habitat	Is not shrinking or fragmenting	Forest connectivity is maintained.	The total number of natural forest patches:	Prevention
			1: Is almost zero
			2: Has increased over time
			3: Has remained steady over time
			4: Has decreased over time
Safe Habitat	Is not shrinking or fragmenting	Clearings and perforations are not emerging.	The total area of perforations in natural forest patches:	Prevention
			1: Has increased over time
			2: Has remained steady over time
			3: Has decreased over time
			4: Shows no change over time
Safe Habitat	Is not shrinking or fragmenting	The forest edge is stable.	The total perimeter/edge of natural forest:	Prevention
			1: Has increased over time
			2: Has remained steady over time
			3: Has decreased over time
			4: Shows no change over time
Monitoring	Hotspot mapping	Hotspots are mapped.	1: mapped only once;	M & E
			2: mapped and updated every 5–10 years;
			3: mapped and updated every 1–2 years and fed into management;
			4: mapped and updated every year and fed into management decisions and actions
Monitoring	Impact and severity monitoring	There is a clear understanding of the human and financial cost of conflict locally.	1: surveyed only once;	M & E
			2: surveyed every 5–10 years;
			3: surveyed every 1–2 years;
			4: surveyed and collated every year and fed into management.
Monitoring	Community attitude tracking	Community attitudes and tolerance to wildlife are known.	Surveys conducted:	M & E
			1: once;
			2: every 5–10 years;
			3: every 1–2 years;
			4: ongoing and fed into management
Monitoring	Performance measurement	Managers and decision makers know if their programmes are achieving desired goals.	1: 0–25% decisions are based on M&E;	M & E
			2: 25–50% made based on M&E;
			3: 50–75%;
			4: 75–100%.

Annex 3.3: Criteria scores

Safe Person
Laws are enacted to protect wildlife.	4
Laws enforced by any officially recognized entity.	2
People are complying with the law.	3
Judicial processes are fair.	4
Crops are consistently guarded.	2
Funds are available for local people to develop their own solutions in prevention.	3
Farmers and communities have the right to modify the land for prevention.	4
There are channels / mechanisms to exchange and expand successful preventative measures locally to be demonstrated & are supported to be expanded locally and/or applied elsewhere.	2
Managers and employers of plantations have committed to safe working practices.	2
People avoid high-risk areas and high-risk times in their daily lives to minimize HWC events and exposure to contact.	3
Income diversification activities are underway across communities.	3
Alternative livelihood programmes are in place.	2
Projects or programmes are underway to help local communities access markets, or do training, or access jobs.	2
All human injuries and death events reported.	2
All livestock loss events reported.	2
All crop loss events reported.	2
All structural damage and loss events reported.	2
All retaliatory killing events reported.	2
Response Teams are in place, equipped, trained and functioning.	4
Information system is in place, is linked to Effective Monitoring, and regular public reports are made available.	1
A recognized (by communities and government) HWC management is in place.	4
Ongoing education programme is in place re conservation and species.	4
A system is in place to understand and reduce local sentiments around conflict.	2
Communities participate in patrolling, policing, and monitoring of community forest areas.	2
A locally applicable insurance / relief / compensation programme for HWC is operational.	1
Personal informant networks are operational.	3
Livestock are guarded and herded during the day (6 am–6 pm)	3
Are livestock fenced / enclosed / tethered at night? (6 pm–6 am)	3
Locally applicable grazing areas are complied with.	3
An anonymous or public informant network is in place and operational.	3
Managers and employers of National Park, military or police staff have committed to safe working practices.	3
People do not venture into, forage, or conduct livelihoods activities inside the PA.	2
Resource extraction and use is sustainable in the buffer zone or community forest.	3
People safe from injury or death by wildlife.	4
Crops have barriers separating them from habitat.	1
Crops given extra protection during peak HWC times.	2
Communities have the skills to put in place preventative measures.	1
A rapid local reporting mechanism is in place.	3
Safe Assets
Crops are consistently guarded.	2
Livestock are guarded and herded during the day (6 am–6 pm)	3
Are livestock fenced / enclosed / tethered at night? (6 pm–6 am)	3
Locally applicable grazing areas are complied with.	3
Household incomes protected by government in the event of natural disaster, disease, or HWC through a compensation / relief / insurance scheme.	3
There is exploration of improved livestock breeds, management, and crops and techniques.	2
There is exploration of using improved management, and crops and techniques.	2
A programme or management plan for weeds is in place.	2
A policy is in place to actively control invasive animal species.	1
Activities to actively control invasive wildlife species is in place.	2
Physical structures, property and equipment are constructed, situated and managed to minimize damage from, and attractiveness to wildlife.	1
Crops have barriers separating them from habitat.	1
Safe Wildlife
Laws are enacted to protect wildlife.	4
Laws enforced by any officially recognized entity.	2
People are complying with the law.	3
Judicial processes are fair.	4
Response Teams are in place, equipped, trained and functioning.	4
Locally applicable barriers, fencing, early warning systems and zoning are in place and functioning.	2
Wildlife are perceived positively locally and support for their protection is linked to livelihoods or community development.	3
Wildlife are not being killed in retaliation for, or to prevent conflict events.	4
Wildlife habitat is protected under law or local agreement.	4
Linear infrastructure (fences, train lines, roads, etc.) are not exacerbating HWC.	4
Movement corridors are present that allow wildlife to move safely between habitats.	3
Habitat is healthy and supports maintenance of wildlife populations.	3
Wildlife have similar level of protection and habitat as they move between the immediate area and outside.	3
Safe Habitat
Laws are enacted to protect habitat.	3
Laws are enforced through recognized means.	3
Habitat protection is effective.	1
Natural habitat is not being converted.	1
Habitat size is staying the same.	4
Forest connectivity is maintained.	4
Clearings and perforations are not emerging.	4
A spatial or land use plan is operational for the area.	4
The forest edge distance is stable.	4
Monitoring
Hotspots are mapped.	1
There is a clear understanding of the human and financial cost of conflict locally.	1
Community attitudes and tolerance to wildlife are known.	1
Managers and decision makers know if their programmes are achieving desired goals.	4

Annex 3.4: Criteria within each element scoring only 1 or 2

Prevention
Laws enforced by any officially recognized entity.	2
Crops are consistently guarded.	2
There are channels / mechanisms to exchange and expand successful preventative measures locally to be demonstrated & are supported to be expanded locally and/or applied elsewhere.	2
Locally applicable barriers, fencing, early warning systems and zoning are in place and functioning.	2
Communities participate in patrolling, policing and monitoring of community forest areas.	2
There is exploration of improved livestock breeds, management, and crops and techniques.	2
There is exploration of using improved management, and crops and techniques.	2
A programme or management plan for weeds is in place.	2
Activities to actively control invasive wildlife species is in place.	2
Physical structures, property and equipment are constructed, situated and managed to minimize damage from, and attractiveness to wildlife.	1
Habitat protection is effective.	1
Natural habitat is not being converted.	1
People do not venture into, forage, or conduct livelihoods activities inside the PA.	2
Crops have barriers separating them from habitat.	1
Crops given extra protection during peak HWC times.	2
Communities have the skills to put in place preventative measures.	1
Mitigation
Alternative livelihood programmes are in place.	2
Projects or programmes are underway to help local communities access markets, or do training, or access jobs.	2
A locally applicable insurance / relief / compensation programme for HWC is operational.	1
Response
All human injuries and death events reported.	2
All livestock loss events reported.	2
All crop loss events reported.	2
All structural damage and loss events reported.	2
All retaliatory killing events reported.	2
Policy
A policy is in place to actively control invasive animal species.	1
M & E
Hotspots are mapped.	1
There is a clear understanding of the human and financial cost of conflict locally.	1
Community attitudes and tolerance to wildlife are known.	1
UtC
Information system is in place, is linked to Effective Monitoring, and regular public reports are made available.	1
A system is in place to understand and reduce local sentiments around conflict.	2