Human-wildlife conflict is really a crisis of forest governance: C R Bijoy
At a time when wildlife attacks are triggering intense political and public debates, particularly in states such as Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, Coimbatore-based C R Bijoy, who examines natural resource conflicts and governance issues, offers a perspective that departs sharply from conventional narratives.
He argues that what is popularly described as ‘human-wildlife conflict’ is to obscure deeper ecological, political and historical realities. According to him, the growing incidence of wildlife attacks should not be responded merely with the lens of compensation, barriers, translocation or the removal of so-called problem animals. Instead, it must be situated within a broader history of forest governance that is centered on habitat fragmentation, forest diversion, exclusionary conservation policies and the denial of community rights.
In a conversation with Down To Earth, Bijoy discusses why he sees the Forest Rights Act (FRA) as a transformative framework for democratic forest governance away from the ills of fortress conservation, and why meaningful coexistence between people and wildlife ultimately depends on placing forest communities at the centre of decision-making while restoring ecological integrity. Excerpts:
K A Shaji (KAS): Human-wildlife conflict is increasingly being treated as a law-and-order or wildlife management issue. Is this a misdiagnosis?
C R Bijoy (CRB): The first problem is the phrase itself. Much of what is presented as ‘human-wildlife conflict’ is actually ‘wildlife attack’. This is to promote a false narrative that the attack is the result of a conflict between the victims and the wildlife to effectively draw the attention away from those who create the conditions that produced it. Governments respond through compensation, solar fences, trenches, translocation and the capture of so-called ‘problem animals’. These are necessary emergency measures, but they do not address the underlying causes. The real issue lies in the transformation of forests over more than a century. Colonial forestry clear-felled natural forests, replaced diverse ecosystems with commercial plantations, destroyed grasslands that recharged groundwater and converted forests into production landscapes. While continuing this post-Independence, dams, mining projects, highways, power lines, tourism infrastructure and other diversions of forest land without ecological concerns added to the trauma. The result has been habitat fragmentation, biodiversity loss, drying streams and increasing pressure on both wildlife and forest-dependent communities. Wildlife attacks are therefore not simply a wildlife management problem. They are the results of the continued internal colonisation of forest on forest ecology, land use and governance.
KAS: How has the denial or poor implementation of FRA contributed to growing tensions between local communities, forests and wildlife?
CRB: The historical injustice that FRA sought to address continues much more forcefully and violently. Bureaucratic resistance to recognising Community Forest Resource rights remains widespread. In 2009, the environment ministry estimated that about 40 million hectares of forest land could potentially come under the Gram Sabha control under FRA, representing more than half of India’s recorded forests. Even today, only a fraction of that area has been formally recognised. Yet this still constitutes one of the largest exercises in recognising customary tenure anywhere in the world. The significance of this achievement is often overlooked. Where communities have secured meaningful authority over forests, there is considerable evidence of regeneration, improved protection and biodiversity conservation. Ironically, official claims that forests have improved and wildlife populations have increased should themselves prompt a closer examination of the role communities have played. At the same time, wildlife attacks are increasing because many fragmented forests are no longer capable of supporting growing animal populations within shrinking habitats. The contradiction is that communities continue to bear the costs of both conservation and development while remaining victims on all accounts from this decision-making.
KAS: Elephant encounters are intensifying across Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. What explains this trend?
CRB: This trijunction with the largest number of Adivasi habitations in the southern region was excluded from the purview of self-governance frame since the colonial period to protect and ensure the growth of plantation economy and now tourism. The colonial plantations and later followed by commercial agriculture, roads, dams, tourism and urban expansion. Large tracts of Adivasi homelands with natural forests were converted into tea, coffee and timber plantations, while wildlife corridors were disrupted and habitats fragmented. At the same time, protected areas including tiger reserves expanded, accompanied by efforts to forcibly evict and relocate local communities. The National Tiger Conservation Authority has advocated ‘voluntary’ relocation of thousands of families from nearly 2,989 square kilometres of core areas in tiger reserve areas of the Nilgiri Biosphere. Wildlife attacks have increased alongside. It reflects the cumulative consequences of colonisation of lands and changing land use, habitat fragmentation and hegemonic claims over forest landscapes that once functioned as integrated ecological systems.
KAS: You have often criticised fortress conservation. What is fundamentally wrong with that approach?
CRB: Fortress conservation is an imperialist politico-legal tool to take total control of vast lands with rich natural wealth in the name of conservation by either subjugating local inhabitants or driving them out. It emerged as part of the colonial approach under the false pretext of pristine wilderness free from humans, making its human inhabitants encroachers. This continues to shape conservation policy in many parts of the world. The model treats forest dwellers as threats ignoring the real and larger drivers of ecological degradation such as mining, infrastructure, commercial extraction and tourism. In India, Adivasis and other forest communities, other than most parts of the Northeast, have historically been robbed of their forest lands along with decision-making despite laws. FRA challenges this by recognising forest communities as governance authorities rather than beneficiaries or labourers. The issue is not whether conservation should be more inclusive. FRA goes much further. It redefines conservation itself by shifting attention from control and exclusion to decolonisation and democratic governance and stewardship. Healthy ecosystems require institutions that are accountable to the people who live within them and depend upon them.
KAS: What role can Community Forest Resource rights play in conservation and conflict prevention?
CRB: Community Forest Resource rights are among the most transformative provisions of FRA because they provide a legal basis for community democratic governance. They empower Gram Sabhas to protect forests, biodiversity, wildlife, habitats, water catchments and ecologically sensitive areas while regulating forest access and use. The challenge is that rights recognition is resisted and where recognised on paper often do not translate into actual transfer of authority. The hegemonic control of the forest departments continues. Yet wherever communities have asserted control, they have demonstrated a capacity to conserve and regenerate forests. Their incentive structure is fundamentally different from that of distant bureaucracies because their livelihoods, culture and future depend directly on the health of ecosystems. Long-term conservation requires institutions that possess both ecological knowledge and a lasting stake in ecological wellbeing. Community Forest Resource rights provide a framework for creating such institutions.
KAS: Has modern conservation policy undervalued indigenous knowledge?
CRB: No doubt that indigenous knowledge has been undervalued. Forest dwellers possess generations of accumulated understanding about wildlife behaviour, ecological cycles, water systems, eco-specific livelihood management and co-existence. Ironically, researchers, forest officials and conservationists depend on this knowledge while denying communities meaningful authority. The issue is not whether such knowledge exists but who controls decisions. Knowledge is frequently extracted and used, but power remains concentrated elsewhere. A genuinely democratic conservation framework would recognise that local knowledge is not supplementary. It is central to understanding how ecosystems function and how they can be sustained.
KAS: There is often an assumption that conservation and community rights are competing objectives. Do you agree?
CRB: Absolutely not. In fact, conservation is an integral part of community survival and hence a legitimate integral right. The real question is which institutional arrangement is capable of sustaining forests over time. Is it a highly centralised bureaucracy controlled by economic interests, or a non-centralised system rooted in local accountability and ecological dependence? Communities living in forests have the strongest stake in ensuring their survival because their livelihoods, culture and future depend upon healthy ecosystems. FRA recognises that democratic governance is central to conservation. They are mutually reinforcing. The false propaganda by vested interests frame the debate that rights and conservation are competing objectives. The focus is to be on identifying governance systems that can respond effectively to ecological realities.
KAS: Kerala is witnessing intense debates over wildlife attacks, buffer zones and protected areas. How do you assess the state’s implementation of FRA?
CRB: Kerala has approached FRA as a welfare measure rather than a governance law. It is predominantly seen as a mechanism for distributing land titles, housing support and livelihood benefits. The transformative governance dimension of the Act have not received attention. Community Forest Resource rights and Gram Sabha authority remain poorly understood. This reflects a popular belief in the primacy of state administration and market-led development. Yet Kerala also has a long history of Adivasi mobilisation and struggles for self-rule. In fact, some of the most important debates on land, autonomy and democratic governance have emerged from Adivasi movements in the state. The potential exists for FRA to become a foundation for democratic forest governance. This potential remains largely unrealised even after two decades of FRA.
KAS: Many conflict-affected communities complain that forest departments dominate decision-making. What institutional changes are needed?
CRB: The answer already exists in law. FRA fundamentally rewrote forest governance in 2006. The challenge is not the absence of institutions but the failure to activate them. Gram Sabhas of forest dwellers are the governance authorities rather than consultative bodies. Forest departments are to function as support agencies to the Gram Sabhas rather than decision-makers. In reality, FRA already provides a framework for democratic governance. What is lacking is political pressure to transfer authority as required by law. Unless power is transferred, the rhetoric of participation is in essence the subversion of the law and its intent: ushering in democracy in the forests.
KAS: Climate change and land-use change are expected to intensify human-wildlife interactions. How can community-based governance improve resilience?
CRB: Forest dwellers and wildlife have coexisted for centuries through adaptation and mutual adjustment. The problem arises when external interventions alter ecology and their ecological relationships. Deforestation, plantations, invasive species, destruction of grasslands and habitat fragmentation disrupt ecological balance and force wildlife into new patterns of movement. FRA offers the most effective framework available for restoring resilience because it places governance in the hands of people whose survival depends upon healthy forests. Community-based governance is not simply about recognising rights. It is about creating institutions capable of responding to ecological change at the scale where change is actually experienced. Climate resilience is integral to this process. It requires local institutions governed by people whose lives are dependent on these very landscapes intimately that can adapt to evolving ecological conditions.
KAS: Finally, what are the biggest misconceptions about human-wildlife conflict, and what would a long-term roadmap for coexistence look like?
CRB: The biggest misconception is that wildlife attacks are human-wildlife conflict (when they are not) and can be solved through technical interventions alone. Fences, surveillance systems, compensation and translocation may reduce immediate risks, but they do not address structural causes. Another misconception is that local communities and wildlife are natural adversaries when this is not true. Actually, both are the victims of the same processes of ecological disruption caused by external forces. The long-term solution lies in democratising forest governance which alone can attempt to restore ecological integrity. Coexistence is not a management technique. It is a political, ecological and social process. It requires healthy forests, empowered communities, accountable institutions and meaningful local self-governance. FRA provides a legal framework for such a transformation. Are we willing to move beyond rhetoric and implement it in both letter and spirit?