Kerala’s recent amendment to the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLPA) to tackle rising human–wildlife conflicts (HWC) has reignited debate over how India can balance conservation and human safety. 

About Human–Wildlife Conflicts (HWC)

• Definition: HWC occurs when wildlife requirements overlap with human needs, resulting in negative interactions — such as attacks, crop raids, livestock depredation, and property damage.
• Magnitude of the Issue in India: As per the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, over 500 people die annually due to wildlife encounters, primarily from elephants, tigers, leopards, and wild boars.
  • Nearly 80% of India’s protected areas are bordered by human settlements, intensifying conflict frequency.
  • Kerala’s Case Study: Declared HWC a State-specific disaster after 900 deaths and 9,000 injuries in a decade.
    • Identified 273 local bodies as critical conflict zones, with 30 hotspots needing immediate action.
  • Wider States Affected:
    • Assam and West Bengal: Elephant-related crop and human fatalities.
    • Maharashtra and Karnataka: Leopard incursions into urban fringes.
    • Chhattisgarh and Odisha: Tribal displacement and crop depredation by wild boars.

Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972: Framework for Biodiversity Conservation in India

• Legislative Significance: Enacted in 1972, the Wildlife (Protection) Act (WPA) provides the legal foundation for protecting India’s wildlife and habitats, regulating hunting, trade, and ensuring ecological balance. 
  • It is India’s first comprehensive law dedicated to biodiversity conservation and aligns domestic efforts with global environmental norms.
• Protected Area Network: The Act establishes a graded system of Protected Areas (PAs) to ensure in-situ conservation.
• Five Categories of PAs:
  • National Parks: Strictly protected zones for ecosystem preservation.
  • Wildlife Sanctuaries: Allow limited human activity under regulation.
  • Conservation Reserves and Community Reserves: Promote participatory conservation with local communities.
  • Tiger Reserves: Created under Project Tiger (1973) for focused protection of tigers and their habitats.
  • Example: India’s first urban wildlife corridor is being developed near the Asola Bhatti Wildlife Sanctuary on the Delhi–Haryana border to enable safe wildlife movement amid urban expansion.
• Flagship Initiatives under the Act:
  • Project Tiger (1973): Aims to conserve tiger populations and restore ecological integrity of tiger habitats.
  • Project Elephant (1992): Focuses on protection of elephants and securing elephant corridors.
  • Wildlife Corridors: Around 88 elephant corridors have been identified by WII/MoEFCC to maintain genetic connectivity; States are incentivised to secure and restore these through land-use planning and community stewardship.
• Regulation of Hunting and Culling:
  • The Act imposes a complete ban on hunting, with narrow exceptions under defined provisions:
  • Section 11(1)(a): The Chief Wildlife Warden may permit hunting of Schedule I species if they become dangerous to human life or are incurably diseased.
  • Section 11(1)(b): Allows hunting of Schedule II–IV species if they become dangerous to life or property or are diseased beyond recovery.
  • Section 62: The Central Government, on a State’s recommendation, may notify specified wild animals (excluding Schedule I and notified parts of Schedule II) as vermin for a defined area and period to mitigate serious conflict/crop loss.
  • Example: Species such as nilgai and wild boar have been declared vermin in certain states to control crop damage.
• Institutional Architecture:
  • National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) and State Boards for Wildlife (SBWL): Formulate policies and review implementation.
  • Chief Wildlife Warden: Acts as the enforcement authority at the state level.
  • Institutional Coordination: National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) consultation is mandatory for tiger reserve matters (e.g., core/buffer changes), while general HWC decisions are taken by the Chief Wildlife Warden/State within the WLPA framework and NBWL/NBWL-advised protocols.
• Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act, 2022: Modernising the Framework
  • Objective: Strengthens wildlife protection, enhances penalties, and ensures compliance with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).
  • Key Reforms:
  • Reduction of Schedules: From six to four for better clarity and international alignment.
    • Schedule I: Highest protection for wild animals (e.g., tiger, Asian elephant, great Indian bustard).
    • Schedule II: Other protected wild animals (penalties below Schedule I).
    • Schedule III: Protected plants.
    • Schedule IV: CITES “scheduled specimens” to operationalise trade controls; does not replace domestic protection for Indian species under Schedules I–III.
  • Use of Elephants: Permitted for religious or traditional purposes.
  • CITES Integration: Introduced the concept of “scheduled specimens” for regulating international trade.
  • Enhanced Penalties: Stricter fines and imprisonment for poaching, illegal trade, and violation of conservation norms.
• Contemporary Relevance:
  • The WPA, 1972, reinforced by the 2022 Amendment, remains the backbone of India’s biodiversity governance. It integrates legal, ecological, and community-based approaches to conservation and aligns national policy with global environmental commitments such as CITES and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
• Constitutional and Federal Dimensions: Wildlife appears under Entry 17-B of the Concurrent List.
  • Kerala’s unilateral WLPA amendment raises the issue of repugnancy under Article 254(1)—if a State law conflicts with a Central law, the Central law prevails, unless the State obtains Presidential assent under Article 254(2).
  • This case tests federal balance in environmental governance.

Drivers of Rising Human–Wildlife Conflicts in India

• Habitat Fragmentation and Encroachment: Rapid infrastructure expansion, deforestation, and mining have fragmented natural habitats and reduced wildlife corridor connectivity. 
  • Linear projects such as roads, railways, and transmission lines cut through migration routes, pushing animals into human settlements. 
  • Encroachment and urban sprawl in buffer zones further disturb natural ecosystems.
• Crop Attractants and Changing Cropping Patterns: Cultivation of high-calorie and water-rich crops like banana, sugarcane, and maize near forest edges attracts elephants, wild boars, and deer. 
  • Such profit-driven cropping choices near wildlife zones increase the frequency of crop-raiding and conflict incidents.
• Climate Stress and Resource Scarcity: Erratic rainfall, droughts, and rising temperatures caused by climate change disrupt the availability of natural food and water. 
  • As forest productivity declines, animals migrate towards farmlands and settlements in search of sustenance.
• Conservation Success Paradox: India’s successful recovery of species such as tigers and elephants has also increased encounters in overlapping territories, as habitat expansion has not kept pace with population growth.
• Urban Expansion and Anthropogenic Disturbance: The spread of urban infrastructure, coupled with noise and light pollution, alters animal movement patterns and breeding behavior. 
  • Human activities on urban fringes often overlap with wildlife habitats, heightening risks for both communities and animals.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Consequences of Human–Wildlife Conflict

• Human and Livelihood Losses: 
  • Loss of Life and Injury: Over 500 human deaths and 9,000 injuries annually due to elephants, tigers, and leopards (MoEFCC, 2024).
  • Crop Damage and Economic Loss: Wildlife incursions destroy an estimated ₹500–700 crore worth of crops each year, pushing farmers into debt.
• Livestock Depredation: Attacks by leopards, wolves, and tigers reduce rural income security, especially among small herders.
• Ecological and Biodiversity Impact:
  • Decline in Key Species: Retaliatory killings and culling (e.g., of wild boars or leopards) disturb predator–prey balance and reduce genetic diversity.
  • Habitat Fragmentation: Increased conflict drives animals away from forests into human landscapes, disrupting natural migration corridors.
• Trophic Cascade Effects: Removal of apex predators (like tigers or leopards) leads to overpopulation of herbivores, causing vegetation loss.
• Ethical and Moral Consequences:
  • Anthropocentrism vs Ecocentrism: A moral dilemma arises between prioritising human lives and recognising the intrinsic value of wildlife and ecosystems.
  • Utilitarian Approach vs Long-term Ethics: While eliminating “problem animals” may appear efficient, it undermines ecological balance, disrupting predator–prey relationships and natural regulation.
  • Duty Ethics and Constitutional Morality: Under Articles 48A and 51A(g), both the State and citizens have a constitutional obligation to protect and show compassion toward all living beings.
  • Erosion of Compassion: Frequent culling or declaring animals as vermin normalises violence against nature, weakening the moral fabric of conservation governance.
  • Environmental Justice: Tribal and forest-dependent communities often bear the highest conflict burden, raising ethical concerns over equity, fairness, and distributive justice.
  • Moral Dissonance: Policymakers face the challenge of balancing human safety and animal rights while maintaining empathy and ecological stewardship.
  • Impact on Conservation Efforts:Weakening of Ecotourism: Increased attacks reduce tourist confidence in visiting wildlife areas.
• Loss of Ecological Resilience: Long-term disruption of species movement affects ecosystem stability and climate adaptation potential.

India’s Best Practices and Examples

• Assam’s Early Warning Systems: Solar-powered fencing and SMS-based elephant movement alerts.
• Uttarakhand’s Rapid Response Teams: Trained personnel for immediate rescue and deterrence.
• Karnataka’s Eco-Compensation Scheme: Crop loss compensation through digital transfers.
• Maharashtra’s Leopard Management Plan: Focused on community coexistence rather than capture.

Way Forward

• Science and Technology–Driven Conflict Management: Integrating science and technology is essential for predicting and preventing human–wildlife conflict.
  • Develop GIS-based conflict maps, real-time HWC databases, and mandate wildlife underpasses, eco-bridges, and AI-linked early-warning sensors across linear infrastructure.
  • Adopt the Predict–Prevent–Protect (P3) framework for proactive intervention.
  • Use M-STrIPES (Monitoring System for Tigers – Intensive Protection and Ecological Status), developed by the NTCA, for real-time patrolling, tracking, and ecological monitoring.
  • Employ drones, camera traps, and AI-enabled alerts—especially in elephant-train and tiger-human interface zones—to ensure rapid, non-lethal response and data-driven management.
• Non-Lethal Mitigation: Beehive fences, solar fences, and elephant-proof trenches (EPTs) in hotspot villages.
  • Plant unpalatable buffer crops (lemongrass, turmeric) along forest fringes.
• Community Empowerment and Local Conservation: Empowering local communities is central to sustainable conflict management.
  • The Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, through Community Forest Resource (CFR) rights, enables Gram Sabhas to manage and protect forest resources, including buffer zones adjoining wildlife habitats.
  • Integrating tribal wisdom—such as beehive fencing, seasonal migration insights, and traditional tracking—enhances coexistence strategies.
  • Promoting eco-tourism, forest-based livelihoods, and community-led conservation incentives reduces antagonism, ensuring that people become partners rather than victims in wildlife protection.
• Cooperative Federalism: Establish State–Centre coordination mechanisms for quick, legally consistent responses.
  • Allow fast-track central clearances for emergency management under WLPA.
• Ethical and Humane Framework: Apply the “least-harm principle” — use non-lethal deterrents before culling.
  • Train forest officers in environmental ethics and compassion-based policy.
  • Uphold Articles 48A and 51A(g) to balance human safety and animal rights.
• Habitat Restoration: Expand elephant and tiger corridors via afforestation and land-use planning.
  • Enrich forest fodder and water sources to reduce crop-raiding.

Conclusion

Human–wildlife conflict in India is as much a governance and ethical challenge as an ecological one. The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 must now be implemented through adaptive, inclusive, and humane approaches. Kerala shows that coexistence, guided by science and compassion, is key. Only cooperative federalism and ethical stewardship can protect both biodiversity and human lives.

DOWNLOAD PDF