Subscribe
Tigers have gone locally extinct from nearly 18,000 sq km of habitat in India between 2006 and 2018.
Poverty, bushmeat hunting, and snares are major drivers of decline in low-density but high-poverty regions.
Almost half of India’s tiger reserves hold fewer than 10 tigers, with three reserves now devoid of big cats.
Armed conflict zones accounted for nearly half of all local extinctions recorded over the 12-year period.
Mining, deforestation and infrastructure projects continue to fragment habitats, undermining recovery.
India’s tiger numbers have risen steadily over the past decades, but many populations are disappearing at a local level. A combination of poverty, mining, deforestation and armed conflict is driving the species out of vast stretches of its range.
A study published earlier this year in the journal Science found that tigers have vanished from 17,992 square kilometres of habitat between 2006 and 2018. These local extinctions occurred even in areas with seemingly suitable habitat, underscoring the scale of pressures beyond forest cover loss alone.
The pace of decline has fluctuated: local extinctions were highest between 2006 and 2010, accounting for 64 per cent of the total recorded, Down To Earth reported on the study. These slowed to 17 per cent during 2010-14 and 19 per cent between 2014-18. Over the same period, tigers colonised 41,767 square kilometres of new habitat, largely in areas linked to protected reserves.
The study linked extinctions to isolation from protected areas, rising urbanisation, infrastructure development, extractive human activity and armed conflict. Government data underscores the severity of the trend: almost half of India’s 58 tiger reserves host fewer than 10 big cats and three reserves have none at all.
Researchers mapped tiger presence across India in 100 sq km grids, surveyed every four years. They found the steepest losses in Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Jharkhand and the Northeast, where human population density is low but poverty rates are high. Here, widespread bushmeat hunting and the use of indiscriminate snares — set for deer and wild boar — also trapped and killed tigers.
Recovery rates were weakest in regions of deep rural poverty, where poor health, education and livelihood opportunities forced marginalised communities to rely heavily on forest resources and wild meat. This dependence is becoming increasingly unsustainable as human populations grow and biodiversity declines.
Nearly half (47 per cent) of all recorded local extinctions between 2006 and 2018 occurred in Naxal-affected areas. Reserves such as Indravati, Achanakmar and Udanti-Sitanadi in Chhattisgarh and Palamau in Jharkhand, saw tiger populations collapse under the pressures of armed conflict, lawlessness and poaching.
The study noted that when conflict subsided — in reserves like Similipal, Amrabad and Nagarjunsagar-Srisailam — tiger populations began to show signs of recovery. The authors argue that sociopolitical stability and conservation progress go hand in hand: instability creates “poaching havens” and even fuels the wildlife trade to fund militant activity.
Habitat destruction remains a major threat. Extensive urbanisation and infrastructure development were noted by researchers to either leave tiger habitats devoid of tigers or risk driving them to extinction in isolated patches.
Deforestation forced tigers out of 322 sq km, while agriculture accounted for losses across 1,574 sq km. Mining and infrastructure projects were linked to local extinction in at least 10 grid cells (about 1,000 sq km). Nationally, 161 tiger habitats were affected by infrastructure development and 82 by mining approvals.
India’s National Tiger Conservation Authority has flagged mining and infrastructure fragmentation as key threats in tiger habitats. In June, the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife approved new coal projects in a recognised tiger corridor in Maharashtra, raising concerns over policy contradictions.
The study highlights the role of legislative instruments, such as the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the declaration of protected areas, as a cornerstone of tiger recovery and in safeguarding tiger habitats from diversions. However, it warns that “downgrading such existing instruments would have far-reaching ramifications for tiger recovery and biodiversity conservation.”
This is a particularly important observation in light of recent revisions allowing the diversion of tiger reserve areas and the sanctioning of mining fields in tiger habitats.
The research highlights a paradox: Economic prosperity can aid recovery when on-consumptive use of ecosystems like tourism, but it also fuels urbanisation and intensive land-use change, which suppress tiger numbers.
“Tiger recovery is constrained at opposite ends of the socioeconomic spectrum, by intensive urbanisation and by poverty,” the authors wrote.
The study stresses the importance of legislative protections such as the Wildlife Protection Act and the declaration of protected areas, calling them the “cornerstone of tiger recovery”. Weakening these safeguards, the authors warn, would have “far-reaching ramifications” for tiger conservation and biodiversity.
They recommend targeted biodiversity recovery in poor districts, which could restore tiger populations across 10,000 sq km. Achieving this, they argue, requires investment in social development, with governments, civil society and scientific institutions ensuring benefits are shared with local communities.
Revenue-sharing models already used in some tiger reserves, where a portion of tourism income is directed to nearby communities, could provide a “win–win” strategy for both people and wildlife.
