National Wildlife Week, 2–8 October, should be more than a celebration of India’s wildlife. It should be a reminder that conservation ultimately succeeds only when institutions, communities and citizens become partners in protecting nature.

India has travelled a remarkable distance from an era when wildlife was widely treated as a resource for human use. Stronger laws, protected areas, scientific monitoring and dedicated frontline personnel have transformed the country’s conservation landscape.

But the next phase is more difficult. Infrastructure, agriculture, towns, industry and expanding human settlements increasingly intersect with natural landscapes. At the same time, communities living alongside forests and wildlife bear many of the costs of conservation.

The central question is therefore no longer simply how much land is protected. It is whether conservation can be made effective, accountable and socially sustainable.

Make Communities Partners

Communities can support conservation through habitat restoration, invasive-species removal, fire prevention, anti-poaching, seed sowing, nursery development, wildlife monitoring, guiding and other conservation-linked work.

Young people can be trained as trackers, guides, patrol staff and fire watchers, while women’s groups can participate in legitimate conservation enterprises.

Building trust with communities living within and around protected areas is essential. Wherever feasible, local residents should receive priority in departmental works and employment under appropriate wage-based schemes. Timely and adequate compensation for crop, livestock and human losses is equally important.

Opportunities for occasional complimentary visits to protected areas, particularly for local families and children, can also strengthen their connection with conservation.

Forest communities bear many costs, including crop and livestock losses, property damage and, in some cases, threats to life. Compensation must therefore be adequate, transparent and prompt. Karnataka’s e-Parihara application, which facilitates the processing of human-wildlife conflict compensation, offers a useful model for other States.

A Karnataka Forest Department initiative involving NGOs and villagers demonstrated the value of participatory conservation. Awareness programmes on forest-fire prevention and anti-poaching helped strengthen local engagement. Such approaches can be adapted to local conditions to prevent fires, poaching, illegal felling and encroachment.

Tourism to selected tribal villages can also help disseminate traditional knowledge, crafts and forest cultures when participation is voluntary and respectful, communities receive fair returns and their culture is represented accurately.

The rights of forest-dwelling communities under the Forest Rights Act must be respected. At the same time, training and capacity-building can help communities add value to non-timber forest produce through improved processing, packaging and marketing. Better and sustainable returns from forest-based livelihoods can strengthen incentives to protect forests.

Strengthen Institutions and Accountability

Credible NGOs working in wildlife conservation can contribute significantly to awareness, research, habitat restoration, environmental education, community engagement and wildlife-crime awareness. Their participation should be based on proven field performance, scientific integrity, transparency and measurable outcomes.

Conservation programmes undertaken by Forest Departments must likewise have a clear and verifiable chain of accountability.

In addition to departmental procedures, major works should be independently evaluated after completion by reputed and impartial organisations with demonstrated expertise in forestry and conservation. Evaluations should verify measurements, quality, physical execution and expenditure.

This is particularly important for seasonal works. Fire lines, for example, must be completed well before the fire season. A delayed fire line can have little value during the January-May period when fire risk is high. Similarly, a water-conservation structure completed after the onset of summer may fail to serve its intended purpose.

Range-wise details of major works—including location, sanctioned amount, expenditure, physical progress and completion date—should be placed on Forest Department websites. Geo-tagged photographs and other verifiable evidence should accompany these records.

A compact digital monitoring framework, including appropriate AI-based tools, can help track timeliness, quality, quantity, expenditure, physical progress and ecological outcomes.

Third-party evaluations should themselves be subject to credibility safeguards. A suitable sample—say, five per cent of evaluated works—could be independently counter-checked by a State-level authority or another competent body.

NGOs receiving public, CSR or institutional funds for conservation should also be subject to proportionate financial, technical and ecological verification, particularly where public funds are involved.

Ultimately, conservation funding should not be judged merely by the amount sanctioned or spent. The real measure must be the quality of work completed and the ecological outcomes achieved on the ground.

Human-Wildlife Conflict Requires Different Solutions

Conflict cannot always be resolved by capturing individual animals. Elephant conservation requires restoration and functional movement corridors across Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala, safer infrastructure and effective early-warning systems. Solar fencing, steel-wire fencing, reused railway-rail barricades, bio-fencing and rapid-response teams can help reduce conflict, but such measures cannot substitute for secure habitats and uninterrupted movement routes.

Governments must provide adequate and timely funding for fencing and other preventive measures at critical elephant-conflict locations. Such investment is important not only for reducing crop and property losses and protecting human lives, but also for building community confidence in conservation.

Leopard conflict requires a different approach. Leopards often live close to villages, particularly in hilly areas, and may prey on dogs and livestock at night. Management should therefore include better waste management, improved livestock protection, responsible management of free-ranging dogs and professional assessment before any decision to capture or relocate an animal.

Relocation should be considered only where there is clear evidence that an individual leopard poses a persistent and serious threat to human safety and other appropriate measures are inadequate. Any capture or relocation should be based on scientific assessment and established wildlife-management protocols.

Tourism Must Adapt to Wildlife

Wildlife tourism can generate employment and support conservation, but visitor numbers and vehicle movement must reflect ecological carrying capacity, wildlife sensitivity, breeding seasons and cumulative disturbance. 

The principle should be simple:

Tourism must adapt to wildlife—not wildlife to tourism.

Tourism planning should therefore consider not merely revenue and visitor numbers but also habitat disturbance, traffic, waste, noise, water use and impacts on animal movement.

Where tourism is compatible with conservation, local communities should have opportunities to participate and benefit. Where ecological thresholds are reached, management decisions must prioritise the integrity of the habitat.

Conservation Must Become a Public Value

Ultimately, conservation cannot remain the responsibility of Forest Departments alone. Schools, colleges, newspapers, television, digital media, civil society and local institutions should explain why forests and wildlife matter—not merely for their beauty, but for water security, climate resilience, agriculture, livelihoods and the quality of life in our cities.

Public awareness should move beyond occasional campaigns. Citizens should understand that healthy forests regulate water, protect soils, support agriculture, moderate climate impacts and sustain biodiversity.

The objective is to make ecological responsibility a public expectation of governance. When citizens routinely ask governments and institutions what they are doing for forests, wildlife and natural systems, conservation moves from being primarily a departmental concern to becoming a wider civic priority.

A New Conservation Compact

India’s first wildlife revolution was largely about protection through law and institutions. The next must be about partnership.

Governments must provide effective institutions and enforcement. Forest Departments must ensure professional management and accountability. Scientists must provide evidence. NGOs must contribute expertise and field capacity. Communities must be recognised as partners rather than merely beneficiaries or obstacles. Citizens must understand the value of natural ecosystems.

The measure of success should be visible on the ground: forests regenerating, rivers flowing, grasslands surviving, corridors remaining open, threatened species recovering, wildlife crime declining and communities living alongside wildlife with greater security and dignity.

A tiger needs a forest.

An elephant needs a corridor.

A herbivore needs grass and water.

A wetland needs its catchment.

A rare species needs its habitat.

A forest needs regeneration.

Biodiversity has a right to survive, and humanity needs healthy, balanced forest and wildlife ecosystems for its own survival.

Those who protect these ecosystems need support, respect and meaningful participation.

The future of wildlife conservation will therefore depend not only on stronger laws or larger budgets, but on whether India can build a durable conservation compact between the State, science, communities and society.

The ultimate goal should not merely be more protected species or larger conservation budgets. It should be functioning ecosystems, secure landscapes, empowered communities and a society that understands that the future of wildlife and the future of people are inseparable.

(The author, a former IFS officer, has served as Head of Forest Force, Karnataka. He currently chairs the Bamboo Society of India.)