A new study cautions that rhino conservation efforts in Nepal have had an adverse impact on local communities, infrastructure, and other species.
Successful anti-poaching and conservation programs in the nation have led to rising rhino populations and visitor numbers, but they have also led to an increase in both human and animal mortality.
Although they were aware of the risks, the locals said they were proud to coexist with rhinos and wanted to do so. Despite having an overwhelmingly poor opinion of living near rhinos due to crop loss or fatalities, people still “strongly” back conservation legislation. They observed widespread discontent with the government’s plan to compensate victims for their losses.
The study was conducted in Sauraha, Nepal, and was written by Michelle Szydlowski of the University of Exeter. It was published in the Journal of Ecotourism. It talks about the “gap” between people’s desire to “rescue” wild animals and their lack of understanding of how they behave. This is especially true of visitors. The same people ignore the costs to other animals who must adapt to coexist with rhinos.
“Hand-raised individuals bring tourists, and while tourism may provide much-needed community income, it also creates a burden on existing infrastructure and may further commodify wildlife or encourage the conversion of wild habitats into tourist housing, restaurants, and shops,” said Dr. Szydlowski, who has worked in rhino conservation and elephant health and welfare in Nepal for the past ten years.
“Due to Nepal’s success in preserving native rhinos, there has been an increase in conflicts between humans and rhinos, and opinions about who has the strongest claim to anthropocentric spaces have changed.” There is a need to reevaluate the effects of tourism as both human and rhino populations are on the rise.
To coexist with humans in shared habitats, rhinos have crossed their physical and species limits. Perhaps it is now necessary to reconsider this dual existence and discover fresh approaches to genuine coexistence in such communities.
Dr. Szydlowski conducted interviews with residents of the area close to Chitwan National Park, nature enthusiasts, visitors, National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC) employees, and public servants. She also kept in touch with interview subjects for a year thereafter and gathered details about the animals and how they had been cared for.
The existence of human infrastructure hasn’t stopped rhinos, whether domesticated or wild, from exploiting farms, gardens, and town streets as shortcuts. In an effort to draw tourists to their hotels and shops, locals share social media videos of passing rhinos.
The majority of wild rhinos are not thought to be dangerous, and they generally pay little attention to shoppers or hotel guests when they pass through town. Locals claimed that wild females, especially those with young, were more unpredictable than males and made noise when they didn’t want to engage.
Wild rhino injuries and deaths happen when people approach the rhinos’ environment, not the other way around. There have been 180 injuries and 55 fatalities attributed to rhinos in the region since 1998.
Indigenous people who had previously resided in the area were forcibly removed as the government’s priorities changed to wildlife protection. These populations now have the highest number of wildlife-related deaths.
“Zones have been set aside for local use, but they rarely produce enough to feed the population there, and neither local people nor government officials are involved in decision-making or land-use planning,” stated Dr. Szydlowski. People who live there have described feeling “less important” than the local wildlife and having to compete with it for resources like land, timber, and money.
“While it is now forbidden to enter the national park itself to obtain supplies for survival (such as feed, firewood, gravel, etc.), many families are left with little choice but to carry on.” Human injuries and deaths that occur inside the park are not covered by government relief programs, adding to the burden on vulnerable populations. In contrast, attacks by wildlife that occur outside the park are compensated.
