Subscribe
Under the rising sun, when the dawn mist still hangs low over the wheat and mustard fields, a lean, ash-grey figure moves through the crops. The animal canters lightly, moving through furrows. Its long legs lift cleanly above irrigation ridges. A farmer, cycling to his field, pauses for a moment to capture the animal in his sight. The animal glances once, then vanishes into the folds of the land.
This is not a scene from a distant wilderness. It is rural India, and the animal is the Indian wolf.
The Indian wolf (Canis lupus pallipes) is an elusive large carnivore that persists primarily in agro-pastoral landscapes rather than protected forests. Its range overlaps with densely populated rural regions, where it occupies agricultural fields, scrub patches, grazing pastures, and wastelands. Human-wolf interactions are longstanding and inseparable; wolves den near villages, prey on rodents and small fauna in croplands, and occasionally take livestock, while cultural narratives reflect their presence at settlement edges.
These environments exemplify “novel ecosystems”, in which ecological processes are fundamentally shaped by human activity. Crop cycles influence prey availability, livestock movements affect predator behaviour, and irrigation infrastructure creates new habitat edges. Consequently, ecological dynamics are co-produced by humans and wildlife.
Several species have not only adapted to but depend on such landscapes, including the wolf, small canids, Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus), porcupines, civets, and numerous bird species. Their conservation requires recognising and sustaining the ecological integrity of these human-dominated multi-use landscapes.
India’s conservation policy has largely followed a fortress model, emphasising protected areas and restricting human activity within defined boundaries. This approach has achieved notable success, particularly through Project Tiger 1973, which significantly aided tiger recovery. However, it has limitations. Grasslands, scrublands, and agro-pastoral mosaics are often classified as “wastelands”, while revenue lands and village commons receive limited ecological recognition. As a result, species inhabiting these landscapes, including the Indian wolf, are frequently overlooked in policy frameworks.
As a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity, India has committed to the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which calls for expanding conservation coverage, restoring degraded ecosystems, and integrating biodiversity across sectors. Although progress has been strong in protected areas and forest conservation, efforts to address biodiversity in multi-use landscapes remain underdeveloped. In this context, Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs) have emerged as a critical tool.
OECMs are defined under the CBD as geographically defined areas outside the protected area network that achieve effective and enduring in-situ conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem functions, where governance is achieved through diverse local institutions and community support. They recognise that conservation does not always require strict protection; it can emerge from community governance, traditional land-use systems, and even productive landscapes.
For India, OECMs offer a chance to correct a long-standing imbalance. They allow the country to recognise biodiversity-rich commons, pastoral landscapes, and even certain agricultural mosaics as legitimate conservation spaces without displacing people.
Yet operationalising OECMs in India faces serious challenges. There is often a unidimensional vision: either ecological assessments divorced from social realities, or social development programs that overlook ecological integrity. Administrative frameworks separate forest departments from revenue authorities and rural development agencies. Political considerations shape land-use decisions in ways that rarely prioritise biodiversity. Moreover, the challenges faced by administration or even legislation are barely addressed collectively for policy implementation.
What is missing is an integrated, interdisciplinary, and holistic approach — one that brings ecology, social sciences, administrative insights, and governance onto the same table.
India’s conservation history demonstrates how a charismatic flagship species can mobilise political will and institutional coordination. Under Project Tiger, Bengal Tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) became both a conservation icon and an administrative priority, resulting in increased funding, improved monitoring, and more secure habitats.
The Indian wolf, though less prominent, represents an alternative flagship grounded in agro-pastoral landscapes rather than forests. As an apex predator, it regulates prey populations and shapes trophic dynamics, serving as a keystone species for functional ecological processes in working landscapes. Its conservation necessitates the maintenance of agro-pastoral and scrub mosaics, thereby supporting a broader assemblage of species.
Given its synanthropic nature, the wolf’s persistence depends on balancing human livelihoods with ecological integrity. Conservation cannot rely on exclusionary models but must instead involve participatory planning, conflict mitigation, and context-sensitive land-use strategies. Events such as Bahraich wolf attacks underscore that coexistence is not inherently unfeasible; rather, it requires effective governance, clear communication, and institutional preparedness in multi-use landscapes.
If India is serious about implementing OECMs, the Indian wolf may be its most honest test case.
Recognising wolf-inhabited rural landscapes as OECMs would require mapping ecological values in non-protected areas, engaging gram panchayats and community groups, aligning revenue and forest departments, understanding political and related legislation concerns, and designing locally appropriate management plans. It would compel administrators to move beyond forest boundaries and treat biodiversity as a cross-sectoral concern.
Such an approach would not benefit wolves alone. It would conserve entire rural ecosystems with cascading impacts on the native trophic structure. It would also protect ecosystem services: rodent control, soil stability, and cultural values embedded in pastoral traditions.
From being one of India’s most neglected large carnivores — overlooked in policy, underrepresented in science, and misunderstood in society — the Indian wolf could help reframe conservation in non-protected areas.
By integrating the wolf into OECM policy frameworks, India could demonstrate globally how conservation goals can be pursued without erasing rural livelihoods. It not only strengthens India’s ability to meet its global commitments but also formally integrates the Indian wolf into policy. In doing so, it can streamline and legitimise the designation of OECMs within human-dominated landscapes, embedding conservation more effectively within lived and working environments.
The future of conservation in India extends beyond protected areas to human-dominated landscapes. Agro-pastoral systems are not ecological remnants but dynamic, productive, and biodiversity-rich environments shaped by long-standing human-nature interactions.
A flagship species approach, paired with policy tools like OECMs, can strengthen conservation in rural landscapes. The Indian wolf represents a model of coexistence, promoting shared rather than segregated spaces. Embedding it within OECM frameworks aligns conservation with local realities and global commitments like the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
India has demonstrated what strong political will can achieve through Project Tiger; applying that same commitment to working landscapes could secure long-term conservation — the real question is whether policy will rise to meet this reality. ‘’
Devvrat Singh is an independent conservation biologist working on the anthropogenic dimensions of carnivore ecology, with a special focus on the Indian wolf
Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth