for instance, are no less valid, rational or
important than the motivations of the back-
packer who treks into thinly populated terri-
tory to commune with nature. An ecotourist
actively spends economic resources in order
to visit and observe wildlife at distant sites;
a villager may endure higher economic loss-
es as a side effect of sharing living space
with the wildlife that he or she reveres. In
every case, these values offer critical sup-
port for conservation and must be assessed
and built upon in any strategy for conserva-
tion.In some cases the holders
of traditional beliefs and
knowledge can build upon
them to mitigate conflict
within the larger political
or legal system, as in the
example of the Haisla,
who persuaded the gov-
ernment of British
Columbia to enact a mora-
torium on hunting of grizzlies. In contrast,
when cultural values relating to wildlife are
ignored, the best-intentioned plans for
development or for conservation may inter-
fere with traditional patterns of human-
wildlife coexistence and cause an increase in
conflict both between humans and wildlife
and between humans over wildlife, as in the
case of the Maasai pastoralists of East
Africa.Recommendations
Further research on cultural patterns of tol-
erance and conflict is needed. It should ana-
lyze and compare situations involving both
coexistence and conflict, as well as situa-
tions in which coexistence has been
replaced by conflict and vice versa, in order
to understand the contributing factors and
design appropriate conservation strategies.
In the meantime, however, some practical
implications for conservationists are clear
without further research.First, a review of cultural factors shouldalways be part of the assessment that pre-
cedes the development of a conservation
strategy or project by local, national or
international institutions. Similarly, environ-
mental assessments for development proj-
ects should include attention to human-
wildlife interactions, including the existence
of cultural features that support coexistence.
In such assessments, cultural beliefs, knowl-
edge and practices that support coexistence
should be catalogued
among opportunities, just
as those that contribute
to conflict should be iden-
tified as threats.^22
Importantly, the assess-
ment should identify fac-
tors that have supported
coexistence and discour-
aged conflict even in situ-
ations where there is no
apparent conflict. Such factors will be of
great value in understanding conflict issues
more generally, as well as locally, if condi-
tions change such that human-wildlife ten-
sion increases.Second, following such an assessment, local
traditions and practices contributing to coex-
istence should be integrated into policies
and programs to address human-wildlife
conflict specifically, and wildlife conservation
and sustainable development more general-
ly. Projects and policies should be designed
to both minimise conflict and retaliation and
support, rather than interfere with, traditions
of coexistence. Even where cultural and
spiritual beliefs foster tolerance for wildlife,
that tolerance is easily eroded when conser-
vation initiatives fail to reflect local values
and voices. Embracing cultural characteris-
tics of tolerance has additional advantages.
It enables the conservationist to be a sup-
portive partner with the community rather
than dealing with local people as if they are
primarily obstacles to conservation. It helps
to integrate perpetuation of nature and cul-
ture so that nature conservation and the
maintenance and vitality of a culture can beHistory, cculture aand cconservation
Despite tthe ooccasional
costs, ppeople ggain
spiritual aand rreli-
gious rrewards ffrom
wildlife, eencouraging
them tto ttolerate hharm
due tto wwildlife aand
refrain ffrom rretalia-
tion
... ccultural bbeliefs,
knowledge aand pprac-
tices tthat ssupport ccoex-
istence sshould bbe ccata-
logued aamong ooppor-
tunities, jjust aas tthose
that ccontribute tto ccon-
flict sshould bbe iidenti-
fied aas tthreats...