Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy: The Hindu

Context:

The Supreme Court has asked the Uttarakhand government to completely restore the damaged areas of the Corbett Tiger Reserve. The State must work with the Central Empowered Committee to prepare a restoration plan within two months, start removing all illegal buildings within three months, and submit a full compliance report to the Court within one year.

What is Human-wildlife conflict?

Human–wildlife conflict is when wild animals and people come into contact in ways that cause harm—such as damage to crops, livestock attacks, property destruction, or danger to human life. It also includes situations where humans harm or kill wildlife in response.

For e.g. Elephants destroying crops in villages near forests, Tigers or leopards attacking livestock or, in rare cases, humans etc.

Reasons for treating it a natural disaster:

• Faster relief and compensation: Declaring human-wildlife conflict as a natural disaster enables swift disbursal of funds and compensation to victims, using disaster management resources and mechanisms already in place for floods, cyclones, or earthquakes.​ This allows States to grant uniform ex-gratia payments (such as ₹10 lakh for human deaths) quickly, reducing bureaucratic delays for affected families.
• Improved administrative coordination: Categorizing these conflicts as disasters mandates coordination between departments like Forest, Revenue, Police, Disaster Management, and local administration.
• Escalating damage to people and property: Human-wildlife conflict results in loss of life, injuries, and destruction of crops, livestock, and property, similar in scale and suddenness to losses caused by natural disasters.
• Socioeconomic stability: When conflicts go unaddressed or compensation is delayed, public support for wildlife conservation decreases, often resulting in revenge killings of animals or habitat encroachment.

Key highlights of the Judgment:

Restoration of Corbett Tiger Reserve

• The Supreme Court directed the Uttarakhand government to fully restore and repair the reserve’s ecology.
• The State must:
  • Submit a restoration plan in two months (in consultation with the Central Empowered Committee).
  • Demolish illegal constructions within three months.
  • File a compliance affidavit in the Supreme Court within one year.

Regulation of Tourism and Safaris

• Tiger safaris are banned in core and critical tiger habitats.
• Safaris can be permitted only in non-forest or degraded forest land within buffer areas, and outside tiger corridors.
• Safaris must be linked to a rescue and rehabilitation centre for injured or displaced tigers.
• Profits from tourism should be reinvested in tiger conservation.
• The Court insisted that ecotourism must not become mass tourism, and it must comply with NTCA (National Tiger Conservation Authority) guidelines.
  • New eco-friendly resorts may only be allowed in buffer areas, and night tourism is banned.

Human-Wildlife Conflict Recognition

• The Court urged all States to notify “human-wildlife conflict” as a natural disaster.
• Victims (or their families) must receive ₹10 lakh compensation under the Central government’s Wildlife Habitat Scheme.
• States were asked to ensure inclusive compensation policies for crop damage and loss of life (human or livestock).
• It emphasized inter-departmental coordination for quicker responses.

Buffer and Core Area Notifications

• States must notify the core and buffer zones of tiger reserves within six months.
• They must also prepare a Tiger Conservation Plan within three months.

Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs)

• ESZs should not be limited to sanctuaries and national parks — they must also include buffer and peripheral areas of tiger reserves.
• States were directed to notify such ESZs within one year.

Global Responsibility: The judgment emphasized India’s global ecological responsibility, noting that the country is home to over 80% of the world’s wild tiger population.

What are the different ways to mitigate Human – wildlife conflict?

Restoring and Managing Wildlife Habitats: Conserving and rehabilitating wildlife habitats is crucial for minimizing animal movement into human settlements. Restoration involves actions such as creating wildlife corridors, protecting existing forests, and adopting land-use practices that enable wildlife to survive within natural landscapes.
Example: In the Kalsubai-Harishchandragad Wildlife Sanctuary, Maharashtra, rapid habitat fragmentation and degradation led to increased conflict between locals and wildlife. Interventions included developing wildlife corridors and restricting certain activities within the sanctuary, resulting in reduced animal encroachment and decreased crop and livestock losses.​

Safeguarding Crops and Farmlands: Farmers can protect their crops and fields using a variety of strategies such as solar-powered fencing, deterrent lights, and bio-fencing with plants like cactus. Diversification of crops to reduce the appeal of particular fields to wild animals is also effective.
Case Study: In Assam, elephant proof trenches and solar-powered fences were constructed along the borders of farmlands, significantly decreasing crop raids by elephants and reducing losses for the local agrarian community.​

Establishing Early Warning Systems: Early warning systems enable communities to anticipate and prevent wildlife encounters. Technologies include sensor-based alert systems, watchtowers, and mobile-based messaging networks that notify villagers about animal movement.
Case Study: In the Valparai landscape (Tamil Nadu), Nature Conservation Foundation set up a network using LED alert boards and SMS notifications to warn communities about elephant presence, resulting in a decline in both human and elephant casualties.​

Involving and Educating Local Communities: Educating communities about wildlife behavior and conflict management is vital. Training programs and participatory conservation initiatives foster coexistence by equipping residents with useful knowledge and conflict resolution skills.
Example: In the villages near the Gir National Park, Gujarat, "Wildlife Mitras"—volunteer villagers—serve as first responders and mediators in conflict situations, helping to reduce tensions between the local Maldhari community and Asiatic lions. Community outreach has also been essential in the Bodo community in Assam, where collaboration with local authorities has improved human-elephant coexistence.​

What are the different government measures to address Human-Wildlife conflict?

• Wildlife Protection Act, 1972: This foundational legislation provides a legal framework for conserving wildlife in India. It includes strict regulations against hunting, mandates the protection and management of wildlife habitats, and facilitates the creation of national parks, sanctuaries, and other protected areas. 

• Biological Diversity Act, 2002: Aligned with the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, this act ensures the conservation and sustainable use of India’s rich biological resources. It supports other environmental laws, reinforcing the legal protection of forests and wildlife. 

• National Wildlife Action Plan (2002–2016): This policy framework aimed to strengthen protected areas, safeguard endangered species and their habitats, regulate illegal wildlife trade, and promote research, education, and capacity building in wildlife conservation. 

• Project Tiger: Launched in 1973 as a centrally sponsored initiative, Project Tiger focuses on conserving the Bengal tiger and its ecosystems. It supports the establishment of tiger reserves and works to reduce threats to tiger habitats. 

• Project Elephant: Initiated in 1992, this scheme is designed to protect elephants, their migration corridors, and habitats. It also aims to address issues like human-elephant conflict through habitat improvement and community participation. 

• National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA): While primarily focused on disaster risk reduction, NDMA also includes guidelines for integrating conflict mitigation strategies into government development plans—particularly in regions prone to human-animal conflict due to natural habitat disruptions.

Conclusion:

Human-wildlife conflict in India demands urgent and coordinated solutions, blending habitat restoration, technology, and active community engagement. Successful interventions—like early warning systems and local vigilance—show that coexistence is possible when people and wildlife are equally prioritized. Treating such conflicts with disaster management tools helps communities recover faster and strengthens conservation for the future.

Source: The Hindu