TThe previously neglected issue of human-

wildlife conflict is increasingly recognised as

a growing problem for conservation. Calls to

address this problem are summarised in

Recommendation 20, Preventing and

Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflictsdevel-

oped at the Vth IUCN World Parks Congress

(Durban, South Africa 2003). Existing

responses to the problem usually are nar-

rowly focused on conflict (e.g., diagnosis of

the problem and prescription of remedies)

and comparatively neglect a broader social

and cultural analysis. Human-wildlife conflict

is identified as an issue when, for example,

a tiger kills someone’s cow, a baboon raids

someone’s crops, or an elephant tramples

someone’s home killing the person inside

and/or when a person or community retali-

ates by killing wildlife it perceives to be a

potential or real threat to its person, its

property or its livelihood. Such aspects of

these problems are real and serious, but

they are only part of the full picture. They

overlooked, for instance, elements of

human-wildlife tolerance and coexistence

that also exist, although are less dramatic

and visible, and can be incorporated into

strategies and programs designed to miti-

gate or prevent conflict.

The narrow, conflict-oriented view of

human-wildlife interaction reflects a more

general tendency whereby we conservation-

ists too often view people exclusively as

obstacles rather than untapped assets for

conservation. But human-wildlife conflict is

not a neatly defined variable, which is either

present or absent. Rather, conflict is just

part of a spectrum that stretches from vio-

lent, constant problems to a relatively

peaceful, even mutually supportive coexis-

tence. The opposite of conflict is not the

absence of conflict, but harmonious, even

mutually supportive coexistence in which

humans play a posi-

tive role.

In most “conflict

scenarios”, there is

an element of coex-

istence that is often

underappreciated

and “deserves fuller

investigation for lessons on good manage-

ment of local wildlife”.^1 By examining the

apparent problems associated with human-

wildlife interactions, one might easily per-

ceive a situation as purely conflictual;

whereas, in reality, people may feel signifi-

History, cculture aand cconservation

CCaann ttrraaddiittiioonnss ooff ttoolleerraannccee hheellpp mmiinniimmiissee ccoonnfflliicctt??

AAnn eexxpplloorraattiioonn ooff ccuullttuurraall ffaaccttoorrss ssuuppppoorrttiinngg hhuummaann-

wwiillddlliiffee ccooeexxiisstteennccee

Francine MMadden

Summary.Modern conservation strategies and programs that further wildlife conservation, including

those that seek to mitigate human-wildlife conflict, have generally ignored indigenous and traditional cul-

tural characteristics that can foster tolerance and coexistence between humans and wildlife. In many cul-

tures and communities around the world, traditional knowledge and beliefs recognise spiritual and materi-

al benefits from wildlife, thereby fostering tolerance of the costs that wildlife sometimes imposes. While

some human beliefs and needs conflict with the needs and lives of wildlife, there is much to learn from

traditional, indigenous and minority cultures whose beliefs and lifestyles foster not only tolerance but in

some cases beneficial coexistence of people and wildlife. This article explores several illustrative cases of

tolerance and coexistence. It argues that conservation initiatives should assess and build on cultural val-

ues of coexistence and tolerance. By incorporating supportive cultural values and beliefs, conservation ini-

tiatives can address the complex challenges of human-wildlife conflict more effectively, and can contribute

to the vitality of indigenous and traditional cultures.

The oopposite oof cconflict iis

not tthe aabsence oof cconflict,

but hharmonious, eeven

mutually ssupportive ccoexis-

tence iin wwhich hhumans

play aa ppositive rrole.