Lee
A Concerned Citizen from Kohima
The issue of human-elephant conflict in Wokha has become increasingly alarming. Frequent incidents of elephants entering fields and plantations, destroying crops and property, and even causing tragic loss of human lives are being reported. Sadly, it is often the poorfarmers, those who rely entirely on agriculture for their livelihood, who bear the brunt of this ongoing crisis.
While it is true that habitat destruction, fragmentation, and encroachment have contributed significantly to these conflicts, it is also important to understand the plight of the villagers. For many, cultivating land is not a choice but a necessity for survival. Blaming either side entirely misses the complexity of the issue.
It is disheartening that despite repeated incidents, concrete and timely action from the authorities, particularly the forest departmentremains insufficient. These are the very agencies entrusted with the responsibility to manage wildlife and ensure the safety of both people and animals. The delay in addressing such a critical issue raises several questions:
• How long must this conflict continue?
• How long must the farmers suffer in silence?
• How long should communities live in fear for their lives, homes, and livelihoods?
• Why is there quick action when an animal is harmed, but slow and hesitant responses when a human life is lost?
This is not about valuing human lives more than animal lives, or vice versa. It is about protecting both, and responding with equal urgency when either is at risk. The Wildlife Protection Act (WPA), 1972, exists to safeguard wildlifebut the spirit of the law is also to promote coexistence and mutual safety. Ensuring justice for a human victim does not mean injustice for wildlife; instead, it reflects a balanced and humane approach that serves all.
While these issues are not new and the concerned authorities are well aware of them, the real challenge lies in action and follow-through. The measures to prevent human-elephant conflict are available and proven. The question is: why aren’t they being implemented consistently and effectively?
The solution does not lie in confrontation, but in prevention, preparedness, and proper mitigation strategies. The forest department and concerned authorities must demonstrate both compassion and commitment.
Some of the practical steps that must be taken include:
1. Adequate and Timely Compensation: Ensure compensation for loss of crops, property, and most importantlyany loss of human life. This provides necessary relief and recognizes the hardship faced by affected families.
2. Physical Barriers and Preventive Measures: Construct solar-powered fences, trenches, or other deterrents in known elephant movement areas to protect farmlands and settlements.
3. Restoration of Elephant Corridors: Protect and revive natural wildlife corridors to allow safe passage for elephants without forcing them into human habitation.
4. Early Warning Systems: Install camera traps, sensor-based alerts, and community-level monitoring to warn villages of elephant movement in advance.
5. Alternative Livelihood Programs: Promote sustainable alternatives like eco-tourism, apiculture, or agroforestry to reduce reliance on traditional farming in conflict-prone zones.
6. Community Engagement and Support: Involve local communities through awareness, training, and participation in wildlife management. Their insights and cooperation are key to lasting solutions.
These are not novel solutions—but they are necessary. The gap is not in knowledge, but in the will to act. Even when compensation is provided, it should not be seen as the final step. Compensation offers temporary relief, it does not prevent the next conflict.
It is also important to recognize that even alternative farming, such as rubber plantations, has not been spared. Elephants have been reported to be entering rubber plantations too. This highlights a deeper reality: the issue is not just about changing what farmers grow, but ensuring where and how they can farm safely.
It Is high time the concerned departments take a more serious and scientific approach to understanding elephant behavior. Why are elephants entering farmlands and plantations? Is it due to food scarcity? Are they attracted by certain crops? Or are they simply returning to what was once their natural habitat?
These are crucial questions, and the answers must guide government policy. If needed, the authorities must consider options such as shifting vulnerable farming communities to safer zones or encouraging the cultivation of less attractive crops.
The villagers’ voices must be heard. Authorities should actively seek their opinions on how the issue should be addressed and take necessary steps using both traditional knowledge and scientific approaches. Only through such inclusive and evidence-based action can long-term, sustainable solutions be achieved. Authorities must look beyond payouts and focus on strategies that tackle the root causes.
Villagers must not feel abandoned or unheard. It is commendable that communities have exercised restraint, choosing not to retaliate despite heavy losses. They have waited long enough. However, this patience must not be taken for granted. If frustration leads to retaliation, it is not the failure of the people—it is the failure of the system.
Human-wildlife conflict is not just about the lives of animals and humans, it reflects a broader crisis of ecological imbalance, land-use policy, and governance. Addressing it sincerely is crucial for forest conservation, wildlife protection, and the dignity and safety of rural communities.
Implementing protection measures may be expensive and involve many challenges. But in the long run, they are investments in safety, sustainability, and coexistence. Such efforts ensure that both human and animal lives are protected, not just for today, but for generations to come.
It Is time the government and all responsible departments take decisive, empathetic, and sustained action to ensure peaceful coexistencefor the sake of both wildlife and humanity.
