Human-Animal Conflict: Intensifying Efforts To Tackle The Threat

On August 31, the south Indian state of Kerala launched an intensive 45-day mission to address the increasing negative interactions between people and wildlife. In a Facebook post on the same day, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan informed the public that around 400 panchayats have been reporting such incidents, with the situation being particularly severe in 273 panchayats.

Earlier this year, Union Environment and Forest Minister Bhupendra Yadav informed the Rajya Sabha that an estimated 344 people had lost their lives in various human-wildlife conflict (HWC) incidents across the state between 2021 and 2025. Of these, 180 deaths were due to snakebites, 103 were attributed to elephants, 35 to wild pigs, and four to tigers.

A study by the Wildlife Department of the Agriculture University for the State Planning Board found that 87% of negative interactions in Kerala were caused by elephants, wild boars, and monkeys. The study further highlighted that 64% of these conflicts occurred specifically in the Wayanad region.

State-specific disaster

In February this year, the Kerala government declared human-wildlife conflict a state-specific disaster to expedite aid and relief, including ex-gratia payments to victims or their next of kin in case of fatalities. A draft legislation is being prepared to address the issue, though concerns remain over the absence of a comprehensive strategy. In July 2025, the government issued an order to provide compensation for wildlife-related losses through both the state disaster fund and the forest department’s fund.

The forest department has also launched several mitigation measures, including 10 missions initiated in February. These cover various aspects including food, fodder and water management, integration of tribal knowledge, solar fencing, wild pig control, and SARPA — a project focusing on reptile conservation while ensuring human safety.

Experts note, however, that there is no single solution to human wildlife conflict; each case requires a context-specific approach based on location and species. Writing in Aranyam, the forest department’s magazine, chief wildlife warden and managing editor Pramod G. Krishnan identifies key drivers of conflict: habitat degradation, unscientific development, barriers to animal movement, climate change, waste dumping, forest fires, and unregulated tourism in forest areas, among others.

“Human wildlife conflict is not limited to large animals such as elephants and tigers. It also involves smaller species like monkeys, wild pigs, peacocks, and even cormorants,” says Renjan Mathew Varghese, State Director of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). “No single solution fits all. Specific studies and interventions are needed.”

He recommends a comprehensive survey of major wildlife populations across the state along with an assessment of forest carrying capacity. “Extensive case-specific studies and documentation of human wildlife conflict are essential for innovative mitigation,” he adds. Among the solutions he lists are: providing quick relief and compensation to prevent retaliatory killings; adopting scientific population control measures where necessary; raising awareness among local communities; sensitising the media for responsible reporting; eradicating invasives; improving forest ecosystem health; and ensuring food and water availability for wildlife.

As part of its mitigation strategy, the forest department has divided the state into 12 human-animal conflict landscapes based on conflict patterns. Within these, 273 panchayats have been designated as conflict zones, and around 30 as potential conflict areas. Some forest department officials say that declaring human wildlife conflict a state-specific disaster has improved interdepartmental coordination and simplified the disbursal of funds.

Multi-pronged solutions

Physical barriers such as elephant-proof trenches and solar-powered electric fences are the most widely used methods in Kerala to keep large mammals out of farmland and residential areas. While these techniques have been effective in restricting animal movement and reducing crop damage, they come with inherent challenges, notes Jose Louies, CEO of the Wildlife Trust of India. He points out that early warning systems could help, but stresses that any such measure requires regular maintenance and constant vigilance. An article titled Human-Wildlife Conflicts: an Overview in Aranyam by P.O. Nameer, Professor of Wildlife Studies at Kerala Agricultural University, echoes these concerns.

Farmer and independent researcher Dileep Kumar, who works on wildlife conflict, agroecology, climate change and sustainable living, argues that bamboo fencing is more practical and cost-effective. “Fencing using electronic materials is not a good idea, as weathering damages it, and so does solar fencing. Trenching also proved impractical as elephants destroyed them during the rains, and the forest department built black stone walls, which are resource-intensive,” he says. Kumar advocates biofencing with Indian thorny bamboo, which he believes can remain effective for up to 50 years.

Citing the crash guard fencing project in the Chedalath range of South Wayanad — announced several years ago to reduce elephant encounters — he criticises its slow progress, despite two deadline extensions. “These projects are mere ‘technical fixes’ carried out without proper study of feasibility or viability,” he says.

Highlighting the broader challenges of conflict mitigation, Louies warns against politicising the issue, describing it as layered and complex. In addition to technology-enabled early warning systems to prevent unexpected accidents, he calls for stronger physical barriers and behavioural change among people as potential solutions.