Kerala’s Cry in the Forest: Seeking a Calmer Law for the Wild

NATIONAL
🗓️ Post Date : June 10, 2025
Thematic Focus: GS3 – Environment & Biodiversity

🌿 Opening Whisper

When the forest spills into the farm, and fear seeps into fields, can law stay still?

🔍 Key Highlights

• Kerala has officially requested amendments to the Wildlife Protection Act (WLPA), 1972 to deal with the growing human-wildlife conflict.
• The state wants to simplify the procedure for culling dangerous wild animals like wild boars and monkeys.
• Proposals include:
  • Declaring Wild Boars as Vermin under Section 62 of WLPA.
  • Removing Bonnet Macaques from Schedule I protection.
• Human-animal conflicts have intensified due to habitat degradation, population explosion of certain animals, and agricultural encroachment.

🧭 Concept Explainer: Wildlife Protection Act & the “Vermin” Clause

The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 classifies animals into six schedules, offering varying levels of protection:

• Schedule I & II: Highest protection — includes tigers, elephants, leopards.
• Schedule V: Lists vermin like rats, crows, bats — these can be hunted legally.

📝 Declaring Vermin:

• The State can request, but only the Centre can declare species as vermin, for specific regions and timeframes.
• Once declared, these animals lose their protection, enabling legal culling.

⚖️ GS Paper Mapping

• GS3: Environment – Human-Wildlife Conflict, Wildlife Governance
• GS2: Centre-State Relations in Legislative Powers
• Ethics Paper (GS4): Animal Welfare vs Public Safety Dilemma

🧠 A Thought Spark — by IAS Monk

“The real conflict isn’t between humans and animals — it is between haste and harmony, fear and understanding. The law must walk gently, even when the path winds through wilderness.”

High Quality Mains Essay For Practice :

Word Limit 1000-1200

Between Forest and Farm: Rethinking Wildlife Law in the Age of Conflict

Introduction

India’s legal architecture for wildlife protection, primarily governed by the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLPA), has long been hailed for its role in safeguarding endangered species. But as human-wildlife conflicts rise — especially in states like Kerala, Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, and Himachal Pradesh — a critical question emerges: Can conservation co-exist with coexistence?

In June 2025, the Kerala government formally requested amendments to the WLPA, asking for greater autonomy to address local challenges such as wild boar attacks, macaque invasions, and crop destruction. This demand opens a larger debate: Should wildlife laws be recalibrated to reflect the realities of rural distress and ecological imbalance?

This essay explores the conflict, the legal challenges, and the delicate balance between protecting species and protecting livelihoods.

Context: Kerala’s Cry for Reform

Kerala’s terrain — a mosaic of forests, plantations, and human settlements — is fertile ground for human-wildlife conflict. In recent years:

• Wild boars have invaded farmland, destroying crops and injuring people.
• Bonnet macaques, once admired in temple towns, now raid homes and terrify school children.
• Farmers have lost both livelihood and life to elephant intrusions.

Against this backdrop, the Kerala government urged the Centre to:

1. Declare wild boars as vermin under Section 62 of the WLPA, allowing culling in specific districts.
2. Remove bonnet macaques from Schedule I, enabling their capture and relocation.
3. Simplify permissions for killing animals that pose imminent danger to humans.

The issue is urgent — but the path to solution is anything but straightforward.

The Legal Landscape: What the WLPA Says

The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, is India’s principal law to conserve wild flora and fauna. It divides species into six schedules based on the level of protection they require:

• Schedule I & II: Highest protection (e.g., tigers, elephants)
• Schedule III & IV: Moderate protection (e.g., hyenas, jackals)
• Schedule V: Declared “vermin” (e.g., rats, crows) – may be hunted
• Schedule VI: Regulates plant species

The law prohibits hunting of any wild animal unless:

• It is declared vermin by the Centre for a specified area/time.
• It has caused death or property loss, and prior permission is obtained from authorities.
• It is a “man-eater”, and its removal is authorized in writing by a Chief Wildlife Warden.

While well-intentioned, the Act’s procedures are often lengthy, bureaucratic, and ill-equipped to respond to fast-evolving conflict zones.

The Conflict on the Ground: Why the Tensions Are Rising

1. Shrinking Habitats

Rapid deforestation, infrastructure expansion, and monoculture plantations have fragmented natural habitats. Animals wander into human settlements in search of food or mates.

2. Rise in Animal Populations

Conservation success stories — like rising elephant and wild boar numbers — are also causing unexpected consequences, especially in areas with no natural predators.

3. Changes in Agriculture

Farmers now cultivate fruit-bearing and tuber crops near forest boundaries, which attract wild pigs, monkeys, and even deer.

4. Ecological Imbalances

Predators like leopards and tigers have declined in many regions, allowing herbivore populations to explode, increasing pressure on farms.

5. Lack of Compensation Mechanisms

While state governments offer compensation for crop loss or livestock death, the process is slow, inadequate, and poorly accessed, leading to resentment and vigilante action.

Kerala’s Proposal: What’s Being Asked?

1. Wild Boar as Vermin
   Under Section 62 of WLPA, a state can request the Central Government to declare a species as vermin. Once approved, that species loses protection for a limited period in specific areas.
   Kerala wants this provision activated urgently for wild boars in affected districts.
2. Bonnet Macaques off Schedule I
   Currently listed under Schedule I, bonnet macaques receive the highest legal protection, making any action against them subject to stiff penalties.
   Kerala argues that they are overpopulated and aggressive, and should be downgraded to allow control measures.
3. Simplified Emergency Culling
   Currently, farmers must obtain multiple permissions to act against crop-raiding or life-threatening animals. The state wants decentralized, quicker decision-making by forest range officers.

Counter-Arguments: Why This Is a Slippery Slope

While Kerala’s concerns are valid, experts caution against hasty amendments:

1. Ecological Disruption

Wild boars are important seed dispersers and prey for leopards and dholes. Mass culling could destabilize the forest food chain.

2. Non-Target Species at Risk

In states like Karnataka, wild boar traps have accidentally caught leopards and tiger cubs, endangering Schedule I species.

3. Lack of Population Data

No scientific wildlife census supports claims of “overpopulation.” Decisions made without data risk being subjective and politically motivated.

4. Ethical Dilemmas

Conservationists argue that:

• Labeling an animal “vermin” often leads to systematic extermination, not humane control.
• The idea of “problem animals” is often a reflection of human encroachment, not animal aggression.
• Culling should be a last resort, not a default response.

5. Welfare Violations

Use of poisoned bait, snares, and electric traps causes prolonged suffering and affects non-target animals like porcupines and jungle cats.

Alternative Approaches: Can There Be a Middle Path?

✔️ Community Engagement

Empowering local forest management committees to monitor conflict and suggest mitigation has worked in parts of Maharashtra and Uttarakhand.

✔️ Crop Insurance & Quick Compensation

A fast, tech-driven crop loss redressal system can reduce farmer frustration and prevent retaliatory killings.

✔️ Biological Fencing and Deterrents

Use of chili fences, beehive barriers, and solar-powered alarms has shown promise in pilot projects.

✔️ Relocation Programs

Trained personnel can capture and translocate animals from high-conflict areas instead of killing them.

✔️ Zonation and Early Warning

Mapping of conflict hotspots and installation of camera traps and motion sensors can help warn villagers early and prevent escalation.

Centre vs State: Who Holds the Power?

Under the WLPA, the power to declare an animal vermin rests solely with the Central Government, even though it is the states that face the consequences. This creates tension in Centre-State dynamics.

Kerala argues for:

• More decentralization, especially in conflict-prone zones.
• Schedule V to be made state-notifiable, allowing states to respond quickly.

However, the Centre is cautious, fearing misuse, political pressure from lobbyists, and dilution of conservation standards.

Way Forward: Toward Humane and Scientific Wildlife Management

To address such sensitive matters, India needs a three-pronged strategy:

1. Science-Driven Decision Making
   All wildlife control policies must be based on population data, biodiversity mapping, and ecological modeling.
2. Ethical Oversight
   A national-level Wildlife Ethics Board can assess the necessity, methods, and humane standards of proposed culling operations.
3. Dynamic Legislative Reform
   The WLPA should evolve — not to weaken protection, but to enable contextual flexibility, transparency, and adaptive conflict resolution.

Conclusion

The conflict between humans and wild animals is not merely about law or land — it’s about coexistence in a changing world. Kerala’s plea is not a call to kill, but a call to rethink. The solution lies not in swinging between protection and extermination, but in walking the thin line between ecology and empathy.

As India’s forests grow more fragmented and its villages expand, our laws too must grow in nuance, not just in length. We need a Wildlife Act that not only protects the tiger and the elephant, but also understands the farmer, the crop, and the cry for balance.

Target IAS-26: Daily MCQs :

📌 Prelims Practice MCQs

Topic: