Contribution of Buffer Zone Programs to Reduce Human-Wildlife Impacts: the Case of the Chitwan National Park, Nepal

The buffer zone committees spent only a small portion (13.7%) of their budget in direct interventions to reduce wildlife impacts. Human-wildlife conflicts were inversely related to investment in direct interventions for conflict prevention and mitigation. Peoples' attitudes towards wildlife conservation were largely positive, with most people aware of buffer zone programs but not satisfied with current practices. The study area, Chitwan National Park, is a 953 km2 protected area situated in South Central Nepal. It is a UNESCO world heritage site known for its high biodiversity, with nearly 70 species of mammals, over 600 birds, 54 herpetofauna, and 126 fish species. The park is home to a variety of ungulates, including four deer species, gaur, wild boar, and nilgai, as well as tigers, leopards, and other carnivores. Contiguous habitat exists towards the south-west and east, with highly populated human settlements and agricultural areas on the other side of the rivers bordering the park. The buffer zone programs in Chitwan National Park were initiated in the 1990s, with a buffer zone legally declared in 1998. Despite their existence for over 20 years, there are only a few studies focusing on buffer zone programs in Nepal, and whether they have helped reduce human-wildlife conflict is not well understood. The study examined buffer zone fund utilization over a decade, assessing the fences and mitigation measures practiced by the communities, and examining attitudes of local communities towards wildlife conservation and the management of conflicts. Reducing human-wildlife impacts requires a combination of strategies based on the location and species involved. Direct interventions aim to reduce the severity of the impacts by lowering the frequency and extent of damage from wildlife, while mitigation measures and indirect interventions aim to raise residents' tolerance to impacts. Spatial separation of human and wildlife through physical barriers, guards, and repellents are common preventive measures. Altering human behavior through awareness about wildlife, establishing early warning systems, predator-proof corrals, changing to crops less palatable to wildlife, improving livestock oversight, and manipulating problem wildlife also mitigate human-wildlife impacts. The study found that buffer zone funds were not adequate to reduce the damage caused by wildlife to human life and livelihood. Preventive and mitigation measures practiced and proposed by the communities included fences, compensation for losses, participation in planning and execution of conservation programs, and equitable sharing of conservation benefits. People's attitudes towards wildlife conservation were largely positive, but they were not satisfied with current practices. The study recommends that buffer zone funds be concentrated into direct interventions to reduce wildlife conflicts.