Mitigating human-wildlife conflict and retaliatory poisonings in India to preserve biodiversity and maintain sustainable livelihoods - Carbofuran and Wildlife Poisoning: Global Perspectives and Forensic Approaches - page 127

4.12 Conclusion
India, with its unique wildlife diversity and large human population, faces several types of human-
wildlife confl ict. Such confl ict is inevitable due to a burgeoning human population and an increas-
ingly fragmented wildlife habitat. India has 2% of the world's landmass (living surface) but supports
15% of the human population and 16% of its livestock (Sinha 2002). The impact of human popula-
tion growth on the loss of wildlife habitat in nine countries (including India) was reported at the 1990
Perth Conference of the IUCN (Kim 1991). It was estimated that 80% of wildlife habitat in India
has now been lost.
As a basically agrarian society, a dependence on pesticides for optimal crop production becomes
inevitable. Carbofuran (as 3% granules) is readily available without any imposed restrictions. To
our knowledge, although many substitutes are under trial, none currently appear to be as attractive
to farmers. Furthermore, carbofuran is also only one of a number of pesticides now being used to
illegally poison wildlife. Any ban or restriction on its use must take into account the benefi ts of
carbofuran in farming as well as its potential to be abused for poisoning. Until a suitable 'wildlife-
safe' replacement is available for carbofuran, the following suggestions could go a long way toward
reducing the number of incidents relating to its illegal use.
• Address human-wildlife confl ict by:
1. Reducing animal incursions into human habitation by effective and user-friendly
methods (i.e., power fencing, use of rotten egg solution, use of conditioned taste aversion
techniques, etc.).
2. Encouraging active community participation by those living in fringe areas of protected
habitat. Inducing a sense of 'belonging' among people towards wildlife.
3. Providing speedy, suffi cient and hassle-free relief to those affected by confl ict-in turn this
will reduce negative attitudes toward wildlife. Presently, a farmer who loses a head of
livestock to a wild carnivore has to make numerous trips to an offi ce situated in a city for
meagre compensation. This dissuades people from pressing for compensation, and may
force them to take matters into their own hands.
4. Removing problem animals like marauding elephants and carnivores (where predation or
man eating occurs) and rehabilitating them in places like zoological parks.
5. Regulating the distribution and use of carbofuran by:
I. Educating farmers about the benefi ts of its safe and proper use, as well as the adverse
effects to humans and the local environment by misuse and abuse.
II. Improving the implementation of existing regulations which monitor the sale and use
of carbofuran and also the type of guidance given by stockists and retailers who sell it.
III. Incorporating repellents in carbofuran formulations to dissuade its consumption in
laced carcasses used to kill wildlife.
6. Strengthening the surveillance system by:
I. Training veterinarians, forest personnel and NGOs on standard procedures involved in
handling cases of poisoning.
II. Setting up poison information centres, which deal with issues related to wildlife
poisoning.