As India’s National Human-Wildlife Conflict Mitigation Strategy (2021-26) reaches the end of its first implementation cycle, policymakers have an opportunity to rethink what the next phase of wildlife governance should prioritise.
India has every reason to be proud of its conservation journey. Its successes are well recognised. The next challenge, however, lies not in protecting wildlife alone, but in strengthening institutions that respond when conflict occurs. To be clear, this is not a question of intent, nor of the absence of policies, protocols or strategic direction. India already has the right building blocks. The challenge now lies in operationalising them consistently across resource-constrained landscapes where limited manpower, specialist capacity and infrastructure can slow implementation precisely when timely, science-based responses matter most.
Every human-wildlife conflict leaves behind more than physical damage. A family may lose a loved one, a farmer may lose livestock or a season’s crop, and communities are left fearful about what comes next. At the same time, immense pressure falls on frontline forest officials to identify, capture or manage what is believed to be the ‘problem animal’, often under intense public scrutiny and within hours of an incident.
Human-wildlife conflict is unlike most public policy challenges because people and wildlife are often victims of the same circumstance rather than adversaries by choice. As settlements expand and wildlife populations recover, the boundaries between human and wildlife use have become increasingly blurred. The question is often less about who entered whose territory than about how the State responds when conflict occurs. The true test of any wildlife strategy is in how confidently the system can act when conflict occurs.
When response mechanisms are unable to keep pace with the demands of conflict situations, both people and wildlife bear the cost. Delays in scientific confirmation, including DNA analysis where required, can postpone decisions on whether repeated incidents involve the same animal. Compensation may take longer to process. Communities lose confidence in official processes. Frontline officers are forced to make difficult decisions under pressure, sometimes without timely access to specialist veterinary, forensic or scientific support. In the absence of credible information, demands for immediate action grow, increasing the risk that decisions are driven more by urgency than evidence.
This is where the next phase of India’s strategy should focus. The first phase rightly identified priorities such as better coordination, stronger community engagement, improved scientific management and greater use of technology. Several states have begun experimenting with AI-enabled early warning systems, digital monitoring and strengthened rapid response mechanisms. The next step is to move from identifying priorities to defining operational standards.
First, India needs to strengthen response readiness. Every serious incident should trigger a coordinated and time-bound response, from mobilisation of trained personnel and scientific evidence collection to laboratory processing, incident verification, compensation initiation and public communication. Scientific tools such as DNA analysis are invaluable, but their value depends on timely collection, accredited processing and rapid reporting. The objective is not simply faster science; it is faster, more credible decision-making.
An equally important, and often overlooked, element of response readiness is public communication. Communities affected by conflict need timely, transparent information, not only on what action is being taken, but why particular protocols exist and how decisions are reached. Clear communication can help build confidence in processes, manage public anxiety and reduce pressure for immediate interventions.
Second, the country must invest in specialised capacity. The increasing complexity of conflict management demands stronger multidisciplinary support. Frontline personnel everywhere need to be supported by wildlife veterinarians, forensic specialists, trained rapid response teams and modern field equipment. The real test of any protocol lies not in its design, but in its consistent execution under field conditions.
Third, the conversation on financing should shift from creating new schemes to making better use of existing ones. India supports conservation through several central and state programmes. The opportunity now is to deploy these resources more strategically while leveraging complementary sources of finance. Corporate social responsibility can support capital-intensive assets such as wildlife ambulances, rescue equipment, forensic labs, communication systems, drones and training facilities. Philanthropic organisations and multilateral partners can help pilot innovation, technology and research before successful approaches are scaled up.
One opportunity worth considering is developing a common national framework for conflict response. Rather than creating another institution, such a framework could establish common service standards, strengthen accreditation and training, promote interoperable technology, benchmark state capacities and encourage greater convergence across programmes.
India’s experience in disaster management offers an important lesson: preparedness is built not only through policy, but through clearly defined roles, standard operating procedures, trained personnel, interoperable systems, regular mock drills and capacity building. Human-wildlife conflict warrants a similar shift, from well-intentioned policy to operational readiness that is consistent, science-led and effective.
Suryaprabha Sadasivan | Managing Principal, Chase Advisors
(Views are personal)