National Wildlife Week, 2–8 October, is an opportunity to reflect not merely on what India has protected, but on what must be done next. 

India’s wildlife conservation journey is one of the country’s remarkable environmental transformations. Until a few decades ago, forests and wildlife were widely treated primarily as resources for human use. Hunting was common, habitats were converted and wildlife received limited institutional protection. The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, marked a watershed. Project Tiger followed in 1973, and India subsequently created a network of National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, Tiger Reserves, Conservation Reserves and Community Reserves. Anti-poaching systems, frontline protection and scientific monitoring strengthened this framework.

That first conservation revolution was essentially about giving wildlife a legal shield. The next must be about making that shield work across entire landscapes—through science, habitat restoration, technology, professional institutions, effective enforcement and sound management.

Secure the Protected Areas We Already Have

While identifying new conservation landscapes, India must also protect the integrity of areas already notified. Protected-area boundaries need clear demarcation, physical strengthening where necessary and regular monitoring. Encroachments must be identified and dealt with in accordance with law. A protected area that exists on paper but is progressively fragmented cannot fulfil its ecological purpose.

This issue is particularly relevant in Karnataka, where some forest lands within Tiger Reserves were historically given on long-term leases, including 99-year leases, several of which expired decades ago. Recovery of many such lands has nevertheless remained entangled in prolonged litigation. Where such lands form part of wildlife habitats or ecological linkages, their ecological significance and importance for wildlife need to be fully considered alongside the legal rights of all parties. Early resolution of such cases, while fully respecting due process, could also provide authoritative guidance for similar matters pending before courts across the country.

Forest Rights Act claims, including those relating to forest areas and protected areas, also need to be assessed against the statutory cutoff date. Historical satellite imagery, compared with current imagery, can provide valuable corroborative evidence. Where imagery from before the cutoff date shows intact forest with no apparent evidence of cultivation, while present imagery shows a subsequently cleared and cultivated patch, the circumstances should receive closer examination alongside revenue, forest, field and other relevant records. Satellite imagery should be treated as an objective aid to verification, not as conclusive evidence by itself.

The issue is illustrated by the situation in Telangana. A PCCF (HoFF) communication dated 14 May 2026, placed before the Central Empowered Committee, records that 3.10 lakh acres had been distributed during earlier special drives and a further 3.58 lakh acres were approved in 2023 as “left-over cases”. The CEC specifically sought a response on whether satellite imagery had been considered before the distribution of pattas in 2023. Forest Department records also refer to satellite imagery and field inspections in examining claims.

The principle should be clear: subsequent clearing or encroachment should not create a retrospective claim to forest rights. At the same time, all genuine statutory rights of forest-dwelling communities must be assessed fairly and according to law.

The unchecked proliferation of resorts around wildlife sanctuaries, national parks, tiger reserves and other protected areas also requires urgent attention. Existing establishments must comply fully with applicable environmental safeguards, construction norms, land-use requirements and wildlife-management guidelines. Where violations are established after due process, the law must be enforced.

A comprehensive nationwide exercise could therefore examine protected-area boundaries, encroachments, expired leases and unauthorised occupations; review relevant Forest Rights Act claims against the statutory cutoff date using historical imagery as corroborative evidence; and identify commercial establishments operating without required approvals or in violation of applicable environmental and wildlife regulations.

Conservation Cannot Stop at Protected-Area Boundaries

India’s protected-area network is not the final map of conservation. Wetlands, grasslands, river systems, mountain habitats, coastal ecosystems, breeding sites and areas supporting rare or endemic species may lie outside conventional protected areas.

Forest Departments, universities, ecologists, field officers, credible conservation organisations and local communities must continuously identify such ecological assets. GIS, remote sensing and wildlife-monitoring technologies can strengthen this process.

A forest does not have to contain a tiger to be priceless.

Conservation planning must increasingly follow the landscape rather than the administrative boundary. Elephants cross forests, farms and State boundaries; leopards move through human-dominated landscapes; wetlands depend on their catchments; and rivers connect ecosystems far beyond protected areas.

The rare Myristica swamps of the Western Ghats illustrate this principle. These ancient freshwater swamp forests possess specialised biodiversity and important hydrological functions. Significant remnants should be mapped and strongly protected, together with their ecological linkages and catchments.

Protection Must Be Followed by Restoration

Legal protection alone cannot restore a degraded ecosystem. Invasive species such as Lantana camara and Senna spectabilis, reported across parts of Karnataka and adjoining protected areas in Tamil Nadu and Kerala, can suppress native vegetation, reduce fodder availability and alter ecosystem processes. Their management requires systematic removal followed by ecological restoration and regeneration of native species.

Several agencies are willing to undertake invasive-species removal and assist in restoring grasslands and native vegetation. Forest Departments should facilitate such initiatives, subject to appropriate ecological safeguards and monitoring. Grasslands should not automatically be regarded as degraded forests awaiting plantations. They are ecosystems supporting specialised plants, herbivores, predators and other wildlife. Healthy grasslands need grass, not trees. Healthy forests need regeneration, not merely plantations.

Degraded streams and nalas require catchment treatment, soil and moisture conservation and watershed restoration. Artificial water sources, including solar-pump borewells, can supplement natural systems but should not substitute for restoration of natural hydrology.

Bamboo regeneration following flowering and mass mortality in southern tiger reserves has also faced challenges from drought, declining seed viability and predation. Timely collection of viable seed, followed by dibbling in suitable elephant and tiger habitats and adequate protection from grazing and other disturbance, can help restore bamboo. Such measures may improve forage and cover and, in suitable locations, contribute to reducing human-wildlife conflict.

The objective should always be to restore what the ecosystem needs rather than pursue arbitrary planting targets.

Look Beyond the Tiger

The tiger is an important symbol of Indian conservation, but wildlife conservation cannot become synonymous with tiger conservation. 

The Great Indian Bustard and Lesser Florican require secure and undisturbed grassland habitats. Other threatened species—including the Hangul, Nilgiri Tahr, vultures, gharial, Jerdon’s Courser, Sangai, Asiatic wild buffalo, dugong, Gangetic river dolphin, red panda, snow leopard, Nicobar megapode, Malabar civet, swamp deer, rhinoceros, caracal and marine turtles—also require focused, species-specific conservation measures backed by effective protection and restoration of their habitats.

Pangolins and Indian star tortoises face illegal collection and trafficking. At the same time, the status and distribution of many lesser-known reptiles, amphibians, freshwater turtles, endemic fish and threatened plants remain poorly understood. Dedicated wildlife-enforcement cells at critical airports and seaports can strengthen detection of illegal wildlife trade and movement.

India should consider a National Species Recovery Mission, with recovery plans identifying population trends, critical habitats, threats, research requirements, disease and genetic concerns and measurable targets.

Breeding and reintroduction should be used where scientifically justified. But success should ultimately mean self-sustaining populations in functioning ecosystems, not simply animals bred or funds spent.

Intelligence, Technology and Enforcement

Traditional anti-poaching camps, foot patrols, snare removal and local intelligence remain indispensable. GPS-enabled patrols, camera traps, drones, thermal imaging and remote sensing can strengthen them.

Wildlife crime must be pursued through the entire enforcement chain—from detection and investigation to forensic evidence, charge sheets and effective prosecution. The Chief Wildlife Warden should undertake regular monitoring of wildlife-crime cases to ensure timely investigation and follow-up.

Personnel involved in investigation and prosecution should receive specialised training in evidence collection, procedure and legal requirements. Forest Departments, Police, Customs, the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and other enforcement agencies need stronger coordination and information-sharing, particularly at international borders, airports and seaports.

Artificial intelligence can assist in analysing camera-trap images, identifying animals, detecting habitat change and supporting wildlife-crime and conflict analysis. But AI can assist—not replace—field expertise, and its outputs require scientific validation. Digital systems can also improve compensation for human-wildlife conflict. Karnataka’s e-Parihara application offers a useful model for reducing the time between an incident, verification and delivery of relief.

Similarly, mobile applications for detecting and reporting forest encroachments, with alerts to Forest Department officials, can strengthen real-time monitoring and enforcement. Other States could adapt such systems to their local requirements.

Restore and Secure Wildlife Corridors

Many wildlife corridors have been narrowed or fragmented by settlements, agriculture, roads, railways and infrastructure. Critical corridors and bottlenecks should be scientifically mapped, legally secured and restored as functional wildlife routes.

Restoration may involve removing barriers, regenerating native vegetation, securing water sources, modifying fences, creating wildlife crossings and, where necessary, strategic land acquisition or voluntary purchase with fair compensation and rehabilitation. A restored corridor must be monitored for actual wildlife use and protected from incompatible future development. A corridor that exists on a map but cannot be safely crossed by wildlife is not a functioning corridor.

India’s next wildlife revolution must therefore move beyond counting protected areas and individual animals. It must restore ecological processes, reconnect fragmented habitats and make conservation effective across entire landscapes. The real test will be whether forests regenerate, rivers continue to flow, grasslands survive, corridors remain open, species recover and wildlife crime declines. The first wildlife revolution gave nature a legal shield. The next must make that shield effective on the ground.

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