中文

Conflicts between humans and wild animals can include disease transmission, crop damage, livestock predation, and direct threats to human safety. This issue is particularly pressing in China, where, according to the authors of this paper, successful conservation efforts and strict hunting laws have allowed wild animal populations and ranges to expand. As these populations grow, urban and agricultural developments encroach further into their habitats, leading to increased encounters and conflicts. Notably, some species like wild boars and macaques have become overly abundant due to a decline in natural predators.

In 2021, the Chinese government called for all provinces to set up science-backed compensation programs to mitigate the impacts of wild animal damage, aiming to protect community interests and promote coexistence. These programs aim to provide compensation — either direct reimbursements or non-cash benefits — to those who incur losses or damage as a result of wild animals. This study evaluates these programs to understand their effectiveness as a mitigation strategy across China’s diverse regions.

To assess the scope and impact of wild animal damage, the authors analyzed a wide range of sources, including academic papers, government reports, and media articles, spanning from 2001 to 2023 across 19 Chinese regions. They also evaluated firsthand data from 3,637 questionnaires completed by stakeholders experiencing wild animal conflicts. Moreover, they compiled a list of what they termed “nuisance” species and conducted detailed case studies in four regions: the Beijing Miyun District, Jilin Province, Yunnan Province, and Tibet.

Findings from the study indicate that wild animal damage in China is significantly underreported. The actual number of “nuisance” species and the extent of damage in certain areas were found to be much higher than previously recorded, suggesting similar underestimations in other locations. Regions known for their rich biodiversity, such as Sichuan, Yunnan, Guizhou, Jilin, and Tibet, have suffered considerable economic losses due to increased wild animal conflicts.

The authors note that current compensation programs have largely failed to curb the increasing conflicts. Only 14 of China’s 34 provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions have enacted formal laws to manage these programs. Many areas lack sufficient local legislation, resulting in inconsistent and often ineffective compensation practices.

The study identified several key issues with China’s approach to wild animal damage compensation:

• Inconsistency across regions: Compensation practices vary widely, leading to unequal support for victims. Some areas lack any formal compensation programs.
• Challenges in damage assessment: Accurately assessing the damage for compensation is problematic, especially in agriculture, where the impact of different species varies by the growth stage of crops.
• Delays in verification and compensation: Confirming damage claims is a slow and resource-intensive process, particularly in remote areas like Tibet. Delays in compensation can provoke retaliatory actions against wild animals.
• Outdated compensation rates: The predetermined compensation rates often do not align with current market prices, leading to dissatisfaction and reduced conservation support.
• Insufficient compensation funds: The funds allocated for compensation have not kept pace with the rise in wild animal populations and incidents.
• Lack of preventative measures: Compensation approval is often contingent upon evidence of preventive efforts, but adequate resources for such measures are lacking.

To address these challenges, the authors propose tightening governmental restrictions, such as imposing seasonal grazing limits, and enhancing proactive wild animal management practices around protected areas. They also suggest immediately updating and standardizing wild animal damage compensation programs to reflect actual losses more accurately, potentially based on market prices and region. Because awareness of compensation programs and education around human-wild animal conflict is lower in some communities, the authors suggest increased publicity and education. Finally, they recommend insurance models that involve both government and private sectors to share financial responsibility and safeguard the interests of affected individuals.

The limitations of the study include potential biases due to reliance on some self-reported data, which can lead to underreporting or exaggeration of incidents. The geographical scope, though comprehensive, may not fully capture the local variations in wild animal behavior and human-animal interactions.

For wild animal advocates, this study highlights the necessity of both proactive and reactive strategies in wild animal management. Enhancing community involvement and education on wild animal protection can foster more sustainable coexistence strategies. This includes promoting habitat conservation, wild animal corridors, and educational programs that teach communities about non-lethal deterrence methods for crops and property.