The costs of a quick fix

Karnataka’s Forest Minister, Eshwar Khandre, recently suggested sterilising certain wildlife species (big cats, elephants) as a key solution to the growing problem of human-wildlife interactions in the state.

The proposal to use immunocontraception, a temporary vaccination preventing females from breeding for a few years, was put forward in West Bengal in 2014, but was later opposed by the Supreme Court. One approval has been given to sterilise leopards in Maharashtra. Many states, including Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh, are planning to adopt the method and await approvals.

The proposal’s main justification is a supposed rise in elephant numbers. Yet a DNA-based study by the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) in 2025 shows a decline: India’s wild elephant population dropped to 22,446 from 29,964 in 2017. Also, no conclusive evidence shows that population growth alone drives more human-elephant interactions. This weakens the rationale for immunocontraception as the primary strategy.

While the minister has insisted on debating the issue with the public and experts before the trial, this could be the right time to seek some clarity. This is not the first time Karnataka has sought such approval. In 2016, in Kodagu, a proposal was pitched with initial funding for the experiment stated as approved by the then Chief Conservator of Forest, Kodagu, Manoj Kumar. Later, in 2018, there was a demand to sterilise 45 elephants in Sakleshpur. A forest official stated the department would conduct immunocontraception on 200 camp elephants before extending the programme to the wild.

Has this been tried on captive elephants? No information is available. Delivering vaccines in dense, uneven terrain is a major challenge. How will this be addressed? How will females be identified for vaccination? Will age be considered, or will only permanent residents be considered on certain coffee estates? Will sterilised females be radio-collared? Most radio collars have lasted less than a year, sometimes only a few months, as seen in Kodagu. How will this be addressed?

The immunocontraception approach is a temporary fix. It works for two to three years per female and requires repeat intervention (booster shots). While it may be a solution for herds living as residents on farmland, as documented in coffee estates in Karnataka, the central concern remains: it does not address the underlying causes of conflict.

Even if some females are sterilised, it will not stop wild elephants from moving across fragmented or human-dominated landscapes. Most interactions are caused by males or male herds. This means interactions will continue, and breeding males will likely be captured to fill more rescue centres. The scientists behind the idea say it will take several years to yield long-term results.

Mixed signals

Earlier this year, while pitching this trial, a state forest official cited a similar programme in Thailand as a positive example. However, Thailand first ran a year-long trial with seven domesticated elephants, and in 2026, used the same approach on three wild elephants. This is not a success story; it remains a pilot project with unproven impact in the wild. There is information from other countries, but there are no studies on Asian elephants that address this method or its biological and physiological effects. Nor is there evidence on how it could alter herd dynamics, social bonds, or behaviour, especially since females will still attract males in musth.

In 2022, the WII received funds to study immune-contraceptive measures for population management of four species. However, the same organisation also promoted elephant translocation as a promising mitigation measure in 2023, based on insights from radio-collaring and the translocation of 10 wild elephants in Kodagu.

In a published scientific technical report, the scientists stated, “Translocation of Asian elephants has emerged as a valuable conservation strategy. It offers an effective means of reducing conflicts, restoring ecological balance, and ensuring the long-term survival of the species.” In 2025, in another peer-reviewed paper proposing an early warning system with satellite telemetry and mass communication as a solution in Kodagu, the team states that elephant translocation harms wild elephants’ health and social structures, and increases human-wildlife conflicts. The same organisations have also been proponents of immunocontraception.

This expensive, temporary fix diverts resources and attention from long-term solutions: timely compensation, community-driven management, robust support for forest personnel, and real efforts to address habitat loss, unchecked development, systemic bureaucratic corruption, and the commodification of research assessments.

Most importantly, when will management strategies include ecological diversity and area-specific socio-political issues? Why do we still use one-size-fits-all approaches across landscapes with diverse ecologies, terrains, and cultures to address human-elephant interactions?

(The writer is an environment journalist)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.