As Kerala faces rising wildlife conflicts, Dr Easa shares his insights with South First regarding urgent mitigation strategies.
Published Feb 26, 2025 | 9:00 AM ⚊ Updated Feb 26, 2025 | 9:00 AM
As Kerala faces rising wildlife conflicts, Dr. Easa shares his insights with South First on urgent mitigation strategies.
Synopsis: Renowned wildlife biologist Dr PS Easa shares his insights regarding strategies to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts. He was part of the Kerala High Court-appointed expert panel that examined the man-elephant conflict following the Arikomban issue in Idukki.
Dr PS Easa, Chairman of Care Earth Trust, is a renowned wildlife biologist with over 40 years of experience in conservation and research, specialising in Asian elephant ecology and human-wildlife conflict.
A member of key decision-making bodies, including the International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission (IUCN SSC) Asian Elephant Specialist Group and India’s Project Elephant Steering Committee.
He was also part of the Kerala High Court-appointed expert panel that examined the man-elephant conflict following the Arikomban issue in Idukki.
He has edited an illustrated series on Kerala’s biodiversity and actively engages in environmental education. As Kerala faces rising wildlife conflicts, Dr Easa shares his insights with South First regarding urgent mitigation strategies.
Q: You were part of the Kerala High Court-appointed expert panel that examined the man-elephant conflict following the Arikomban issue in Idukki and submitted a report. Have any of the recommendations been implemented?
A: The committee’s work was not limited to the Arikomban issue; it was just one of the many cases we examined. The committee itself has been dissolved, and a new expert panel has been formed.
Our recommendations were site-specific rather than statewide, as a universal approach to this issue isn’t feasible. We submitted two reports, one on Wayanad and another on Munnar. However, none of our recommendations have been implemented so far.
The government and the forest department introduced district-level conflict monitoring committees. What became of them? Nothing — because there is no one to monitor them. That initiative is now defunct. The High Court had appointed our committee, but we are unaware of the report’s status, as the amicus curiae does not keep us updated.
Unless there is proper motivation, nothing will function. Later, the forest department claimed they would form a committee with international experts. What happened to that? They failed to do so — perhaps because they couldn’t bring in experts from the Moon and Mars.
Q: Which South Indian state addresses human-wildlife conflicts most effectively? Is it Kerala, which often claims the top position in various sectors?
A: Tamil Nadu is systematically tackling the issue. They are collecting data properly, analysing it, and using it to formulate effective strategies. The government has set clear targets and is well aware of what is happening on the ground.
While many states are trying to address human-wildlife conflicts using technical solutions, Tamil Nadu stands out for its structured and data-driven approach. They rely on well-documented information rather than ad-hoc measures.
One noticeable difference is that the Tamil Nadu government has a strong hold on the media. As a result, reporting on these issues does not attract much national attention, unlike in Kerala, where media scrutiny is more open and extensive.
Q: If food and water scarcity are not the reasons for crop raiding, what could be driving wildlife into human settlements?
A: Wayanad’s issue is unique compared to other regions. The district has around 110 settlements within the sanctuary. One of the key allegations we examined was the availability of water and other resources. However, there are nearly 70 fully charged water bodies in the area.
From a common man’s perspective, it might seem that wild animals venture out due to a lack of food and water inside the forest, but this assumption is incorrect.
Most incidents of crop raiding occur in August, September, and October, periods when there is no significant scarcity of food or water. Therefore, I do not agree with these allegations.
If necessary, the Forest Department should conduct a study to establish the facts.
Q: If tourism in ecologically sensitive areas like Wayanad continues without structured management, what long-term consequences could it have on both wildlife and local communities?
A: Tourism must be properly managed and conducted based on a well-defined project. However, currently, neither the Forest Department nor the Tourism Promotion Council has any written project outlining how tourism should be carried out.
Tourism planning should consider its impact on local communities, natural resources, and wildlife. Unfortunately, many in the tourism sector fail to recognise its significance. The benefits of tourism should primarily support the people living around the forest.
Another argument often raised is that invasive plants are responsible for the rising human-wildlife conflict. However, this claim is incorrect. Take Senna spectabilis as an example, it did not arrive recently.
Historical records of Wayanad from as early as 1900 show evidence of human-animal interactions, long before what is now termed ‘conflict.’ I began working in Wayanad in 1992, and at that time, Senna was not present. The focus of our project was on human-wildlife interaction rather than invasive species.
Q: Is culling a solution to some extent?
A: Culling can be considered a solution, but only if supported by proper data. It should not be confined to Wayanad alone, as the region is part of a larger 6,000 sq. km area that includes Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. Indiscriminate culling is not an option; a scientific approach is necessary.
For instance, Australia culls certain kangaroo populations, but in other regions, including Africa, large-scale culling has not been undertaken in recent years.
Previously, culling in Africa was found to lack data-driven justification and was often influenced by economic and cultural factors. Simply replicating foreign practices without considering local ecological and cultural contexts is not advisable.
Instead, a long-term monitoring system for animal populations, beyond administrative boundaries, is essential. This would provide valuable insights, and the responsibility should not rest solely on the forest department. A dedicated scientific team should lead the effort to ensure informed decision-making.
Q: Why does the government keep changing strategies instead of ensuring a long-term fencing solution for human-wildlife conflict?
A: No one wants social fencing; people prefer electric fencing, rail fencing, and other physical barriers. While these may offer short-term relief, they are not sustainable solutions in the long run.
Some suggest using honey hive fencing to deter animals, but this is not a scientifically viable solution in our region, as it would attract bears. While it may offer some financial benefits to local communities, it does not effectively address the issue.
There needs to be a balance, both wildlife and human concerns must be considered. The government lacks a long-term vision. A proper strategy should include both short-term and long-term plans, with the latter spanning at least 20 to 30 years.
Unfortunately, political leadership keeps changing, and each minister makes new promises, only for the cycle to repeat. Take Wayanad, for instance, there was a long-term plan prepared three years ago. Where is it now? Is it still in effect?
The government had formed the Jana Jagratha Samithi, granting panchayat presidents decision-making power on culling wild boars in agricultural fields, following proper licensing and guidelines. But where are these committees now? Licensing cannot be given to just anyone; that would be reckless. In Nilambur, nearly 300 wild boars were culled; a similar situation occurred in Ranni.
Q: Is the media truly reporting on wildlife, or just feeding a marketable curiosity?
A: Media has played a questionable role in shaping the current narrative. Human-wildlife interactions are not new, yet they are now treated as breaking news. If someone spots an elephant or a tiger while driving through a forest road, it becomes a sensational headline — forgetting the fact that the road itself cuts through the animal’s habitat.
Much of this coverage appears to be driven by tourism interests, enticing people to book resorts for a chance at wildlife sightings. Recently, a journalist called me, asking how many wild buffaloes exist in the forest.
I told him I didn’t know and suggested he ask the forest department. He replied that the department didn’t have the data. So I asked him in return — how many stray dogs are there in the city? He had no answer.
I conducted the first scientific wildlife population study in Kerala, in 1992. Journalists today neither know about it nor seem interested in learning.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
