In India and Nepal, women frequently encountered wildlife directly while gathering essential forest resources, such as firewood, water and fodder, thereby significantly increasing their exposure to potential wildlife attacks. Despite being disproportionately affected due to socio-cultural norms that assign them these high-risk responsibilities, women often remained marginalised in discussions about conflict resolution. In Bhutan and Nepal, where farming has become less profitable due to HWC, the trend of male outmigration for off-farm employment has resulted in women assuming dual roles, managing both agricultural work and domestic duties. This increased workload, coupled with persistent anxiety about wildlife encounters, contributed to heightened psychological stress. Additionally, in the absence of men in villages, women had to bear the impact of economic insecurity caused by wildlife-induced crop damage and livestock losses.

Women faced traditional and cultural barriers to their participation in HWC management. Deeply entrenched patriarchal norms restricted women to domestic responsibilities, limiting their participation in village meetings where critical decisions about HWC management are made. Although women possessed valuable knowledge of wildlife behaviour gained through their daily interactions with the environment, the inherent traditional beliefs and attitudes often dismissed their insights as less significant. The caste system often created barriers to women's participation in HWC management, as social hierarchies excluded marginalised groups from decision-making spaces. Women, particularly from lower castes, possessed valuable ecological knowledge, but were obstructed from contributing to HWC discussions and solutions. Financial constraints were economic barriers, preventing many women and marginalised groups from accessing HWC training and meetings, as they could not afford transportation costs. Additionally, their involvement in mitigation initiatives was further constrained by limited time, as the burden of unpaid domestic and caregiving responsibilities left them less time for engagement in such programmes.

Women were also confronted with institutional barriers and they remained significantly under-represented in key decision-making bodies, such as forest committees and wildlife task forces. Furthermore, existing HWC policies overlooked gender-specific needs, such as ensuring safe routes for resource collection and failing to create an inclusive framework for women’s meaningful participation. In some cases, women’s inclusion was just symbolic, as their presence lacked real influence over the outcomes of discussions.

Children were tasked with herding animals in forested areas and commuting long distances through wildlife habitats to reach school. This caused heightened risks of wildlife encounters, leading to physical injuries, psychological trauma and even school discontinuation. Meanwhile, elderly individuals and persons with disabilities were confronted with unique challenges due to limited mobility, which hindered their ability to evacuate quickly during wildlife incidents. The growing migration of youth from rural areas further compounded these vulnerabilities, as older populations were increasingly left to manage agricultural activities alone. In India and Nepal, ethnic and Dalit groups were comparatively more vulnerable to wildlife attacks due to their settlement near the forests.

Participants identified several agencies as stakeholders and partners in human-wildlife conflict (HWC) management in the mid-hills, including NGOs, international donors, the private sector, media and tourism industries, insurance companies and the transport sector.

NGOs were regarded as pivotal in addressing HWC through tailored, multi-faceted interventions, such as providing financial support for mitigation projects, conducting community awareness campaigns, implementing capacity-building programmes and advocating for policy changes. Participants highlighted that their key strategies could involve funding conflict mitigation measures, educating communities on wildlife behaviour and co-existence practices and training locals in adaptive techniques like predator-proof fencing and early warning systems. While India and Nepal relied heavily on NGOs for implementation, Bhutan’s efforts remained primarily government-led with supplementary NGO support. NGOs and international donors were recognised for bringing critical technical expertise, financial resources and community-driven solutions to HWC management. They collaborated with research institutions to generate evidence-based insights and supported grassroots organisations, such as Community Forest User Groups, buffer zone committees and youth clubs, empowering local communities to actively participate in conservation and conflict resolution. To reduce economic vulnerability, participants noted that NGOs promoted alternative livelihoods, including eco-tourism, handicrafts and agroforestry initiatives, which not only decreased dependence on conflict-prone activities, but also bolstered community support for conservation. Additionally, NGOs drove innovation through action research, testing new tools and providing information for evidence-based policies. They also served as vital intermediaries, fostering collaboration amongst governments, communities and international donors.

International organisations were seen as strengthening HWC efforts by providing funding, technical assistance and capacity-building initiatives. They facilitated knowledge exchange, regional coordination and gender-inclusive planning, ensuring policies integrated local perspectives. Their support enhanced institutional frameworks and promoted transboundary collaboration for more cohesive conflict management.

The private sector, according to participants, contributed through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives, funding awareness campaigns and supporting sustainable livelihood programmes, particularly in India, with increasing engagement in Bhutan and Nepal. Participants noted that the private sector enhanced HWC solutions through financial, technological and operational support. CSR programmes funded mitigation projects, skill development and community-based conservation efforts, while ecotourism ventures created employment opportunities, reducing reliance on forest resources. Private enterprises also developed innovative technologies, such as wildlife alert systems and deterrents and supported insurance schemes to protect forest staff and farmers. Agroforestry initiatives further mitigated conflicts by promoting sustainable land-use practices.

The media and tourism industries played a crucial role in raising public awareness and promoting eco-friendly practices. Meanwhile, insurance agencies had the potential to offer compensation schemes for affected communities, though a comprehensive national-level crop and livestock insurance programme remained unfulfilled across Bhutan, India and Nepal, where existing compensation mechanisms served as interim solutions. Additionally, the transport sector was recognised for addressing infrastructure-related conflicts, particularly in India, where linear development projects intersected with wildlife habitats.

The most immediate concerns of HWC were threats to food security and livelihoods due to crop damage and livestock depredation. Given that the region is both ecologically rich and densely populated, with rural communities relying heavily on agriculture, livestock and forest resources, these conflicts directly undermined household and community economies, worsening poverty. To mitigate these issues, a combination of strategies was felt necessary, including the use of species-specific physical barriers, habitat modification, enhanced deterrent systems and alternative livelihood programmes to reduce dependency on vulnerable land. Additionally, compensation schemes, predator-proof livestock pens, coral fencing and herd size management were mentioned to significantly reduce livestock losses and enhance community resilience.

Beyond economic losses, HWC also posed risks to human safety, with incidents of injury and death, particularly amongst frontline responders and communities near conflict zones. Establishing trained, gender-inclusive rapid response teams was felt essential, supported by standardised operating procedures, regular training on conflict management and animal behaviour and effective crowd control during high-risk operations such as wildlife rescues. Participants highlighted the need to strengthen traditional mitigation practices with improved compensation mechanisms and livestock insurance programmes to support affected households and prevent retaliatory killings.

Participants felt the need for special attention to ensuring the inclusion of marginalised groups such as women, the elderly and differently abled individuals who are often excluded from HWC planning and decision-making. Empowering these groups through awareness campaigns, sensitisation programmes and inclusive governance frameworks was felt crucial for sustainable conflict resolution.

At a broader ecological level, landscape interventions were needed, including the identification and protection of wildlife corridors, promotion of wildlife-friendly infrastructure (e.g. adherence to Nepal’s Wildlife-Friendly Infrastructure Development Guidelines (2022)) and integrated land-use planning in collaboration with local governments and communities. Transboundary disease risks could be addressed through regional cooperation, enhanced veterinary surveillance and timely reporting. Clear demarcation of buffer zones, community awareness programmes and participatory monitoring initiatives were proposed to restrict human encroachment into wildlife zones. Participants felt that retaliatory killings could be reduced through fair and timely compensation schemes, conservation awareness campaigns and strengthening local conflict resolution mechanisms.

The meeting emphasised the critical role of community participation in strengthening M&E systems for HWC management. Integrating local and indigenous knowledge, particularly from women and elders, who possess deep insights into wildlife behaviour and traditional coping strategies, was seen to enhance the accuracy and relevance of data. Grassroots engagement could be further strengthened by appointing village-level focal persons and involving school clubs, youth groups and community forest members in data collection efforts. Providing these stakeholders with user-friendly tools, such as mobile applications or simplified reporting forms, was underscored to ensure inclusive, sustainable and accurate data collection.

Tracking changes in HWC incidents over time was noted to require a blend of technological and institutional tools. Standardised reporting platforms like SMART, integration with centralised systems, such as FIRMS (Forest Information Reporting and Management System) and field-based data collection through GPS mapping, camera traps and household surveys could enable systematic monitoring. These methods would not only help identify emerging trends and conflict hotspots, but also provide an evidence base for adaptive and timely interventions.

Assessing the socioeconomic impacts of HWC and mitigation measures involved monitoring shifts in household income, agricultural productivity and community satisfaction with compensation schemes and alternative livelihood programmes. Comparative pre- and post-intervention analyses could help quantify benefits, while cost-benefit evaluations would ensure optimal resource allocation. This approach would help align conservation efforts with the economic well-being of affected communities.

Technology was recognised as a key enabler of M&E systems, allowing for real-time, large-scale and precise data collection. Drones were noted to facilitate aerial surveillance of wildlife movements and habitat conditions, while mobile applications streamlined field reporting. GPS and satellite tracking provided insights into species movement patterns and AI-powered camera systems, like TrailGuard, offered instant alerts on wildlife presence. These innovations supported data-driven decision-making, enhancing the efficiency and responsiveness of HWC management.

Evaluating ecological outcomes involved monitoring shifts in wildlife behaviour, habitat quality and biodiversity. Satellite imagery helped assess habitat recovery, while field surveys tracked species diversity and population trends. Understanding how animal movements and interactions evolved post-intervention ensured that mitigation strategies not only reduced conflict, but also contributed to ecological sustainability.

The participants emphasised that sustaining and scaling solutions require strengthening community ownership and local capacity to empower, incentivise and institutionalise community roles. To strategise human-wildlife conflict (HWC) management at the grassroots level, local communities needed to be actively engaged in all stages of planning, from identifying issues and challenges to proposing solutions, implementing measures and monitoring outcomes. Integrating HWC into broader local planning processes could facilitate this shift from mere consultation to co-design, fostering trust, legitimacy and long-term sustainability.

Strengthening local capacity was highlighted as a key requirement, achievable through investments in leadership and institutions. Sustained training programmes were deemed essential to empower communities in leading HWC responses, such as deterrent measures, early warning systems and conflict hotspot monitoring. Identifying and training community-based institutions like Quick Response Teams (QRTs) or Rapid Response Teams (RRTs), providing equipment, incentives and embedding efforts within livelihood programmes were recommended strategies. Linking training with income-generating activities, such as eco-tourism, was seen to integrate conservation into daily life.

Assured funding was suggested to be vital for sustaining solutions for HWC management, which could come from multiple sources, including government allocations at national, regional and local levels. Private sector partnerships through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives could provide financial and technical support for mitigation infrastructure, capacity-building or compensation funds. Innovative mechanisms like Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) were proposed to incentivise communities for maintaining landscapes that reduce HWC risks. Insurance schemes, whether subsidised or community-owned, were also recommended to mitigate economic losses from crop or livestock depredation.

To ensure long-term funding, conservation endowments or trust funds could be established with support from donors, philanthropy or government seed funding. Bilateral donors and multilateral environmental funds (such as GEF or GCF) remained crucial for piloting innovations and regional coordination. Additionally, ecotourism revenues, if transparently re-invested, could finance community scouts, protective infrastructure and education programmes, provided local benefit-sharing frameworks were in place.

Scaling up successful HWC solutions required a strategic and adaptive approach rather than mere replication. A scaling readiness assessment was necessary to evaluate whether a pilot solution could be adapted to new regions. Documenting best practices could help avoid repeating ineffective measures, while economic valuation identifies cost-effective components. Peer-learning through exposure visits and community exchanges fostered hands-on knowledge and collaborative problem-solving. Transboundary collaboration and regional knowledge platforms were also critical for shared funding and coordinated efforts.

Effective policy integration was highlighted as critical to sustaining and scaling solutions, for which adaptive frameworks and stakeholder-revised strategies were essential. HWC management plans needed regular updates, based on new data, community feedback and ecological changes. Involving all stakeholders, such as local communities, government agencies, conservationists and affected individuals, could ensure context-specific and co-created solutions. Mainstreaming HWC strategies into national and district-level plans aligned conflict mitigation with broader disaster resilience and development goals.

Sustainable HWC solutions and scaling also relied on technology that plays a pivotal role by improving prediction, preparedness and participatory management. Tools like GPS collars, drones and camera traps enabled real-time wildlife tracking, while predictive modelling identified high-risk areas. Mobile-based alert systems and incident reporting tools empowered communities and improved response coordination. Data-driven decision-making supported policy adjustments and strategic resource allocation.

Continued post-project collaboration required structured partnerships amongst governments, NGOs, researchers and communities, with clearly defined roles. Knowledge-sharing platforms, adaptive feedback loops and sustained financial support from NGOs and INGOs were vital for grassroots innovation and scaling efforts. These approaches ensured long-term impact through co-ownership, inclusive governance and adaptive learning.