We know that humans are destroying the habitats of wild animals and doing much more to push them out of forests in search of easy food and prey. This conflict is also, in part, a consequence of successful wildlife protection, which has increased animal numbers. But this cannot be an excuse to look away from the desperate plight of farmers.
We tend to brush it under the table — and because it hurts the poor, it is easy to do so. The 2025 report “Human Wildlife Conflicts: an Estimation of Net Agricultural Losses in Maharashtra”, by the Pune-based Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, is the only study of its kind. Its findings show the net agricultural losses in the state due to wildlife are ₹10,000 crore-40,000 crore annually. And this, says the report, is a gross underestimate. What is worrying is that the study found 62 per cent of the farmers had reduced their cropped areas because of animal attacks. Farmers listed crop damage by wild animals as the key problem after unseasonal rain and low prices for produce; one-third said such damage was the main reason for their loss of income.
A 2021 study by the University of British Columbia, Canada, and the Centre for Wildlife Studies, India, found that farmers in Karnataka lost one to three months of income each year to wild-animal raids. A single elephant “interaction” can cost a farmer a loss of 20 per cent or more. A 2025 study from Kodagu district in Karnataka found that close to 50 per cent of farmers surveyed incurred losses amounting to a whopping ₹90,000 per year, pushing many into debt. The forest department of Himachal Pradesh estimates that annual crop losses add up to ₹500 crore, and if indirect costs of fencing and other protection measures are included, it would be ₹1,500 crore at the very least. This is again confirmed by a 2026 study in the Western Ghats of Tamil Nadu. The study says 90 per cent of farmers identified wildlife conflict as their primary production risk, with a staggering 50-60 per cent of crops damaged primarily by wild boars, peafowl and elephants. Investigation by Down To Earth from across the country recounts the same story of lost income, livelihoods and rising indebtedness. The question now is: What needs to be done to “rebalance” this relationship and establish some form of co-existence between humans and animals?
The Indian government’s response so far has been slow, confused and dismal. What is good is that it now accepts the nature of the crisis. As of the June-July kharif season 2026, it has included animal-related losses in the national crop insurance scheme, the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana. Farmers are given a 72-hour window to report the loss, which will be verified using drones before compensation is paid. Whether this will work remains to be seen, given the scheme’s existing flaws. Additionally, it is the state governments that pay compensation to farmers. The report of the Gokhale Institute also found that even when 25 per cent of farmers affected by wild animal attacks sought compensation, only 1-2 per cent received payment commensurate with the damage. Most either did not know about the scheme or could not navigate its complex bureaucratic procedures.
The flashpoint is Kerala, where the issue has become not just a battle between humans and animals but also a dispute between the Centre and the state. Under Section 62 of the Wildlife Protection Act, only the Centre can declare a wild animal “vermin”, which would then allow it to be culled by the forest department. The Centre has been reluctant to do so even for specific animals in specific states. So, the Kerala government in 2024-25 introduced its own Wildlife Protection Bill, declaring attacks by wild boars a statewide disaster and classifying the animal as “vermin”. In February this year, the Kerala governor finally agreed to forward the Bill to the President for clearance. The Bill does not allow farmers to kill wild boars themselves; instead it devolves authority to licensed shooters, who can be called upon by panchayats to cull the animal.
On the other hand, late last year, the National Board of Wildlife recommended reinstating protection for the rhesus macaque as a Schedule II animal, making culling difficult. It follows recommendations from animal-rights groups, but discounts the fact that even forest departments agree monkeys have become a menace and efforts to control their population through sterilisation have not worked. I would call this decision tone-deaf. Such an approach will only mean more conflict, not less. This is not good for either conservation or farmers.
The author is at the Centre for Science and Environment. sunita@cseindia.org, X: @sunitanar 
 "Human animal conflict, elephant, wildlife")