Description

Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy: The Hindu

Context:

Q: What prompted Kerala to amend the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972?

Kerala witnessed a sharp rise in human-wildlife conflicts, leading to over 900 deaths and 9,000 injuries in the past decade, particularly due to elephants and wild boars. The amendments aim to provide faster response powers to tackle such emergencies

Q: Why is the amendment controversial?

Critics argue it bypasses central approval and may violate the national wildlife framework, leading to ecological imbalances and misuse of powers. Environmentalists fear it could undermine species protection achieved under the central Wildlife (Protection) Act.

Q: How severe is the human-wildlife conflict in Kerala?

Between 2020 and 2024, Kerala recorded over 460 deaths, 1,200 major injuries, and ₹79 crore in compensation due to human-wildlife encounters. The most affected districts include Wayanad, Idukki, and Palakkad.

Kerala, one of India’s most literate and environmentally aware states, is known for its strong local governance and biodiversity-rich ecosystems such as the Western Ghats and Silent Valley. With 64.26% of its land under forest and tree cover, the State has made significant strides in wildlife conservation, as reflected in its growing tiger and elephant populations.

Why we need to balance lives and conservation?

Balancing human lives and wildlife conservation is essential because both are interdependent parts of a sustainable ecosystem and society.

Protecting Human Lives and Livelihoods: Increasing human-wildlife conflicts — such as elephant raids on farms or tiger attacks — have led to loss of life, crop damage, and property destruction.

Preventing Ecological Imbalance: On the other hand, unchecked culling or habitat destruction in the name of safety can disturb predator–prey relationships and reduce biodiversity.

Ensuring Long-Term Sustainability: Conservation cannot succeed without local community support. If people feel unsafe or economically burdened, they may turn hostile to wildlife.

Legal and Ethical Responsibility: India is bound by national and international commitments, such as the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

Recent Legislative Amendments:

To address this crisis, the Kerala Cabinet approved amendments to the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
Key provisions include:

Empowering the Chief Wildlife Warden to authorize the immediate killing of wild animals posing a threat to human life without central approval.
Allowing the State to declare certain species, such as wild boars, as vermin for controlled culling to protect crops.
Downgrading the bonnet macaque from Schedule I to Schedule II to enable population management.
Granting the State powers to relocate or apply birth control measures for certain species independently.

These measures aim to balance human safety with wildlife conservation through faster decision-making.

Challenges of recent amendments:

Challenge	Details & Data	Source
High casualty & conflict rates making radical changes risky	Between 2020-2024, Kerala reported 460 deaths and 4,527 injuries from human-wildlife conflict. Elephants contributed significantly to the death toll. Critics argue that in the midst of such high conflict, decisions to allow immediate killing or reduced protection could worsen ecology and invite misuse.	(The Indian Express)
Heavy compensation burden and insufficient benefits	Over the past six years, Kerala has spent ₹ 79.14 crore to compensate damage from human‐wildlife conflict. Of this, only about ₹ 26.44 crore was for deaths, with many payouts (crop damage / property loss) being quite low (₹1,000-₹7,000). Some farmers feel compensation is inadequate and delayed.	(The Times of India)
Declining wildlife populations contradicting overpopulation claims	Data (though contested) suggest elephant numbers have dropped: e.g., in some reports, elephant population in Kerala fell from ~5,706 in 2017 to ~2,386 in 2023. This undermines argument that certain species are overly numerous and need culling.	(Reddit)
Risk of legal conflicts and central law override	Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 is a Concurrent List subject. Amendments that allow state governments to bypass central approvals (for example, killing wildlife or declaring species vermin) may conflict with central legislation and precedents, possibly inviting judicial review. Critics highlight that such decentralization could weaken unified conservation norms.
Ethical, scientific, and ecological concerns	Proposals like declaring boars as vermin, reducing protection status of bonnet macaque, or allowing immediate killing without thorough study risk ecological imbalance. There’s concern about decisions being made without sufficient scientific data or long-term monitoring.
Disparity in compensation and incentives	While deaths and injuries are severe, the rewards (legal/institutional) for local bodies or individuals to act are low. Farmers and affected individuals complain that compensation for deaths (~₹ 5.53 lakh) is much lower compared to other states (₹ 20 lakh in some). Low crop‐loss payments further reduce motivation to follow legal protocols.	(The Times of India)
Potential misuse of powers and overreach	Granting more powers (e.g. immediate kill orders, declaring species vermin) to state‐level authorities without robust oversight risks misuse or arbitrary action. Local bodies might make decisions in haste, without consultation, scientific backing, or proper checks.	(Reddit)

Way forward:

Scientific and Data-Driven Conflict Management: Kerala should implement AI-based tracking and GIS mapping of conflict-prone zones, similar to Karnataka’s model, which reduced human-elephant conflicts by 27% between 2020 and 2023 through real-time monitoring and early alerts. (Source: WWF-India Report on Human-Wildlife Conflict, 2024)

Enhanced Coordination with Central Authorities: Establish a joint Centre–State Wildlife Coordination Committee under MoEFCC to ensure Kerala’s amendments align with the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, avoiding duplication or contradictions in legal provisions. (Source: MoEFCC Annual Report, 2024–25)

Community-Based Conflict Prevention: Expand Kerala’s Parambikulam and Wayanad community conservation models, which have shown a 35% drop in conflict incidents where local tribal communities were directly involved in monitoring and mitigation. (Source: Kerala Forest Department Annual Report, 2024)

Non-Lethal Mitigation Measures: Scale up use of solar-powered fences, bio-fencing with chili or citrus plants, and drone surveillance, which have reduced elephant crop raids by 40% in Tamil Nadu’s Coimbatore region. (Source: Project Elephant, MoEFCC, 2023)

Improved Compensation and Insurance Schemes: Kerala disbursed ₹79 crore in compensation (2020–24), but delays remain. Introducing Wildlife Conflict Insurance, as piloted in Maharashtra, could provide quicker relief and reduce hostility toward animals. (Source: Indian Express, 2025; MoEFCC Wildlife Compensation Framework, 2024)

Monitoring, Research, and Technology Integration: Establish a State Conflict Data Observatory integrating forest department, panchayat, and satellite data to predict hotspots and deploy rapid response teams. (Source: Kerala State Planning Board, Environment and Forests Outlook, 2024)

Source: The Hindu

Practice Question

Q. “Kerala’s amendments to wildlife protection laws reflect the growing tension between conservation and community safety.” Discuss. (250 words)

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Kerala witnessed a sharp rise in human-wildlife conflicts, leading to over 900 deaths and 9,000 injuries in the past decade, particularly due to elephants and wild boars. The amendments aim to provide faster response powers to tackle such emergencies

Critics argue it bypasses central approval and may violate the national wildlife framework, leading to ecological imbalances and misuse of powers. Environmentalists fear it could undermine species protection achieved under the central Wildlife (Protection) Act.

Between 2020 and 2024, Kerala recorded over 460 deaths, 1,200 major injuries, and ₹79 crore in compensation due to human-wildlife encounters. The most affected districts include Wayanad, Idukki, and Palakkad.