In C’garh, Expansion Of Elephant Range Fuels Human-Wildlife Conflict

Chhattisgarh has emerged as a new frontier in Asian elephant conservation, hosting a metapopulation of 250-300 elephants that have been expanding their range from neighbouring Odisha and Jharkhand since the year 2000. While this growth signals a possible recovery of elephant habitats in central India, it has also led to increasingly frequent, and sometimes dangerous, contact with local communities.

According to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Chhattisgarh reported 303 human deaths from elephant-related incidents between 2019 and 2024, about 15% of the national total, even though the state is home to only 1% of India’s elephants. The Chhattisgarh Forest and Climate Change Department has also recorded over 80 elephant deaths in the past six years, as of 2024.

A collaborative six-year study by the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) and the Chhattisgarh Forest Department now offers deeper insight into this issue. “This region has significantly higher human-elephant conflict compared to others in India. Human deaths are also alarmingly high despite the relatively low elephant population,” says Lakshminarayanan Natarajan from the Elephant Cell, WII, and lead author of the study.

Where forests meet fields

To understand elephant-human interactions and their impact in this region, the researchers focused on northern Chhattisgarh, a landscape of sal forests and rich mineral reserves. The region is predominantly rural. While rice is the main crop, farmers also cultivate seasonal vegetables, pulses, maize, wheat, and sugarcane. In recent years, mining activity has also been steadily expanding.

The study assessed landscape-level crop loss caused by elephant incursions across 10 forest divisions of the state: Surguja, Surajpur, Balrampur, Jashpur, Manendragarh, and Koriya under the Surguja Forest Circle, and Katghora, Korba, Raigarh, and Dharamjaigarh under the Bilaspur Forest Circle. This area includes four protected zones: Guru Ghasidas National Park and the Tamor Pingla, Semarsot, and Badhalkhol Wildlife Sanctuaries.

Researchers also conducted a fine-scale assessment of crop losses in a high-conflict hotspot — a 1,200-square-kilometre stretch across the intersecting borders of Surguja, Surajpur, and Balrampur forest divisions in the Surguja Circle. “The biggest challenge was mobility, as elephant ranges here are vast. But we had strong field support. It was a collaborative effort, involving trackers from South India, local tribal scouts, and the Forest Department,” says Natarajan.

Crop damage was studied at two levels. First, they mapped average crop loss across 1,126 larger four sq. km blocks using Forest Department records. Smaller losses, often unreported, were assumed to follow similar patterns. Then, in the high-conflict hotspot, a trained team tracked crop damage in more detail across one sq. km areas between February 2019 and February 2020. They used high-resolution satellite maps provided by India’s National Remote Sensing Centre to study factors like forest cover, nearby roads, villages, and farmland. Statistical tools then helped them understand what influenced crop loss most, including whether damage was caused by lone elephants or herds.

“Mapping damage across the settlements was straightforward using Forest Department records and GIS platforms. But we also studied fine-scale patterns such as what crops they [elephants] preferred, how they accessed fields, timing of the incursion and how they broke fences. This required daily field visits, dung analysis, and crop enumeration,” says Natarajan.

What the study found

Over 1,400 villages reported crop damage, with the majority of losses in areas elephants frequented. In a detailed one-year study in the Surguja circle, 363 crop-raiding incidents were recorded, affecting 12.4 hectares (0.12 sq km), mostly sugarcane, rice, maize, and wheat. It was also found that crop losses caused by elephant groups were higher than losses caused by solitary elephants.

Crop raids were more common in areas with dense forests or scattered forest patches, which elephants used as daytime refuges before entering fields at night. Fields near roads experienced less damage, possibly due to human activity, patrolling, or early warning systems.

Another significant finding was that both male and female elephants were involved in crop raiding. Typically, lone males take these risks, while herds with females and calves stick to safer zones. But here, even matriarch-led groups were found foraging in farmland. “Because the forests here are interspersed with human settlements, the interaction frequency is very high. Elephant diet is heavily influenced by crop availability, and they consume many cultivated crops,” Natarajan explains.

Habitat or hazard?

What makes Chhattisgarh’s elephants particularly interesting is that they are part of a naturally expanding metapopulation. When the region was still part of undivided Madhya Pradesh, elephants would occasionally pass through but never settled permanently. “That’s likely because too few elephants arrived, and the Madhya Pradesh government didn’t support their establishment,” says Natarajan.

After the state was bifurcated, Chhattisgarh permitted elephant settlement. Consequently, as habitats in neighbouring states became saturated, elephants began recolonising parts of their historical range here. “These are areas they once inhabited before going locally extinct in the 1920s,” says Natarajan. But now, the elephant habitats increasingly overlap with mining zones, a key driver of large-scale habitat loss. “The forests aren’t ideal, and they are already highly fragmented, making conflict almost inevitable,” he adds.

GPS collar data from 10 elephants tracked by the WII show that herds in this region have vast home ranges, averaging about 3,000 sq km. But with forests fragmented, they must travel farther for food and shelter, raising the likelihood of human encounters. “In established ranges, both elephants and people learn each other’s patterns. In new areas, unpredictability is high and elephants are stressed, which can trigger erratic behaviour and heighten conflict risk,” Natarajan adds.

India loses around 500 people each year to elephant-related incidents. Elephants also suffer, killed by electrocution, poisoning, or revenge attacks. “Crop loss can be managed, but human fatalities are a deeper, moral crisis. Our research offers pathways to reduce that,” he continues.

Local lessons, regional relevance

As Chhattisgarh navigates the twin imperatives of conserving its returning giants and protecting rural livelihoods, its experience could help shape India’s broader response to human-elephant conflict.

Grassroots groups like Hathimitra Dal (Friends of Elephants) already play a crucial role, working with forest officials to track elephant movements and alert villages through loudspeakers and WhatsApp alerts. The study recommends scaling up these community-led efforts by integrating real-time GPS data from collared elephants, enabling more accurate and locally tailored early warning systems.

The researchers also call for smarter land-use strategies. Promoting large, contiguous forests, especially in protected areas like Tamor Pingla Wildlife Sanctuary and Guru Ghasidas National Park, can reduce pressure on agricultural land. Conversely, improving habitat in small forest patches might backfire by drawing elephants closer to farms. “The opportunity lies in identifying viable forest complexes — large, minimally disturbed areas where elephants can thrive,” says Natarajan.

While crop switching is often suggested, the study warns that it’s not a simple fix. Sugarcane, for example, though highly attractive to elephants, is a vital income source for many farmers in the region. “We know elephants love sugarcane, but what else can we grow that brings the same money? It’s not like we can feed our families with less income just to stay safe,” says Ramprasad, a farmer in Surajpur.

Instead, the team recommends practical measures such as portable barriers/fences in high-damage, fragmented forest areas where permanent barriers aren’t feasible. “Timely compensation, inclusion of local knowledge, and long-term investment in habitat connectivity are also crucial for building a more sustainable coexistence strategy, for both elephants and people,” Natarajan concludes.

(Published under Creative Commons from Mongabay India)