Reframing India’s wildlife conflicts

Policy must pivot on the ‘conflicting human’ and reshape governance through wildlife-sensitive approaches

Wildlife safaris in Bandipur and Nagarahole national parks, suspended on November 7, 2025, following the death of three persons in wildlife conflicts in the Bandipur landscape, were reopened on February 22. Have we resolved the issue that led to the suspension? What needs to change to avoid a recurrence?

Fundamental to the context of human-wildlife conflict are five premises. First, wild animals sustain under the forces of nature, guided by their instincts. Second, wild animals are an inseparable part of biodiversity, which is essential for human progress and well-being. Third, humans are a dominant force on the planet and have expanded across most of it, adversely affecting all other species and biodiversity. Fourth, humans take a short-term view, often ignoring long-term implications. Fifth, they act beyond the means naturally available to them, through technology.

What does this suggest? While wild animals act predictably and on natural instinct, humans act beyond instinct and often against nature. Nonetheless, humans incriminate the wild animals as intruders, raiders, attackers – the real perpetrators of human-wildlife conflict. Such framing and focus on the ‘conflicted animals’, rather than the ‘conflicting humans’, is misplaced. This misdiagnosis of the conflict's cause hinders its resolution.

We define human-wildlife conflict as the loss of human life, injury to humans, and property damage caused by wild animals. Animals killed in conflicts are an underemphasised part of the conflict. Are the fragmentation of wild animal habitats by diverting them for development, hunting wild animals for bush meat, and the deliberate disposal of plastic, poultry, and other waste in forest areas not the ways humans conflict with wildlife?

Human-wildlife conflict is primarily concentrated in landscapes surrounding forest areas that have been converted to agricultural fields and settlements, and utilised for other infrastructure. Such landscapes are predominantly inhabited by marginal farmers and landless households at the bottom of the economic pyramid. These households rely heavily on natural resources – land, animal meat, wood, fruits, and water – to sustain themselves. With uncertain means of survival, they risk engaging with the wild animals.

The majority of the sources of conflict in peri-urban areas are avoidable, and their mitigation rests with the development planners. Conflict becomes inevitable when land utilisation is not planned, and development approaches the forest boundary. Uncared-for dogs attract leopards, and unmanaged waste dumps attract wild pigs and other animals, putting them under threat from intersecting the human-designed landscapes.

Conflict is a by-product of the pressure on developmental planning and governance, which has fallen short in delivering decent standards of living to people inhabiting forested landscapes. Despite planning and regulatory bodies’ explicit mandate, development proceeds opportunistically and intersects with animal habitats and movement corridors, causing conflict. Development planning needs to be sensitive to the risk to households from unmanaged interface with wild animals. It must aim at separation from forests and wild animals. The Karnataka Forest Rules 1969, under Rule 41(2), provide for maintaining a buffer of 100 metres from the forest boundary and restrict developmental activities within the buffer. However, this provision has been followed more in exception, resulting in their loss in most forest areas.

Mapping movement patterns

Human-wildlife conflict arises under specific circumstances at a site. It is animal-specific and site-specific. An animal is instinctively attracted to sources of food and water, and seeks safety cover. For example, an elephant may raid a sugarcane field or a coffee estate where these resources are available, or a tiger may prey on livestock grazing in a forest, exposing humans in the vicinity to potential attacks.

Using their expertise and technology, planners can map animal-luring resources and human activity patterns and assess the risk of conflict. This can inform them about the vulnerabilities and required actions. The demarcation of development zones and separate spaces for wild animals and humans is desirable. However, when not feasible, adopting precautionary measures and developing long-term human-wildlife cohabitation plans becomes necessary.

Locating new infrastructure, such as settlements, mining pits, and industrial units, in proximity to forests invariably increases conflict. Panchayat Raj and urban area bodies should approve development plans that are inherently wildlife-compatible. Developmental provisioning under the Forest Rights Act must anticipate potential conflicts.

The focus on ‘conflicted animal’ is a misdiagnosis of the crisis. The current fixes of animal-proof fences and compensation funds are a bandage, not a cure. Conflict-sensitive developmental planning that focuses on the ‘conflicting human’ can help ease the friction. Continued conflict will erode the support for biodiversity conservation and the opportunity for sustainable economic development.

(The writer is a retired IFS officer and former director, Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy)