Mission Arikomban, which involved the translocation of the wild tusker Arikomban from Chinnakanal to Periyar Tiger Reserve, incurred an estimated cost of Rs 80 lakh for Kerala’s exchequer. Interestingly, the total budget allocation for the forest department in Kerala this year to compensate victims of human-animal conflicts is only Rs 70 lakh. State forests and wildlife protection minister A.K. Saseendran says the department is in great need of modernization, but financial limitations continue to be a constraint. In an exclusive interview with THE WEEK, Saseendran discusses the human-animal conflict in Kerala, the challenges faced, and how a new wave of animal lovers is causing difficulties for the forest department.
With the recent surge in incidents of human-animal conflict in Kerala, you requested a national consensus to create legislation to address such conflicts happening across the country.
All actions carried out by the forest department are now based on the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972, which is a strict law. However, this law does not explicitly address how to respond to unusual situations like the ones that have arisen in Kerala. Under Section 11 of the law, the chief wildlife warden of the state has the authority to order the shooting of an animal if it poses a threat to humans. Many people are questioning why the government is not utilizing this provision, and it is a valid question. However, it should be noted that this provision can only be employed under certain strict conditions. The chief wildlife warden must adhere to various guidelines and ensure that there is a unique situation that warrants such action. This requires obtaining a field report, which can be time-consuming. The public, on the other hand, expects the government to take immediate action when an incident occurs, and this is a genuine need. Unfortunately, the decision-making process follows a time-consuming procedure, which creates the perception that the forest department is not granting permission to shoot problematic animals. In a recent incident at Vellanad in Thiruvananthapuram, we quickly granted permission to tranquillize a bear that had entered a human habitat, but unfortunately, the bear fell into a well and died, leading to complaints that we did not take sufficient precautions and conduct a thorough investigation before issuing the order.
As a result, there is a growing consensus that a clear legislation from the Union government is necessary to provide guidance on how to act in these situations. I welcome such views, as the practicality of these laws and actions ultimately depends on a decision from the Union government.
Experts say that to solve or reduce human-animal conflicts, habitat-specific and species-specific studies and solutions must be used. Does the forest department of Kerala have adequate resources in hand to do such studies and find solutions?
The forest department is in great need of modernization. Until recently, the forest department of Kerala did not encounter significant difficulties. However, in the past year or so, there has been a tumultuous increase in the number of attacks by wild animals, necessitating a comprehensive study. This study should encompass various factors, such as climate change and habitat destruction, which are relevant to the entire nation. Therefore, it would not be logical for the state to conduct an isolated study on this issue. Understanding why wild animals are encroaching upon human habitats is a comprehensive topic that requires a holistic approach.
Though there are several limitations for individual states to undertake such studies, it is the responsibility of the state to initiate such efforts. We are currently in discussions with the chief minister to take action in this regard.
There are also complaints about delays in compensation and compensation amounts given by the department in human-animal conflicts.
There are two main issues at hand. Firstly, the allocated funds for compensation are insufficient. Secondly, there is a lack of an efficient system to deliver compensation promptly. The budget allotted to the forest department itself is low, accounting for only 0.5647 per cent of the total budget allocation.
In the previous financial year, the forest department received only 25 per cent of the allocated funds. In the recent state budget, a meagre amount of Rs75 lakh was earmarked for compensation. If a person dies [in a human-animal conflict] we give Rs 10 lakh. If it is a grave injury, for treatment we give Rs 2 lakh. So, if 10 persons get injured, we will not have a penny in hand to give them. So, that allotment needs to be increased.
Furthermore, the lack of funds has resulted in delays in delivering compensation in numerous cases. The existing norms for assessing crop damage and determining compensation are outdated and require revision. Presently, agriculture officers visit the affected sites and determine the compensation amount, which the forest department approves. However, the forest department no longer has a role in deciding the compensation amount. Similarly, in cases of loss of life, the forest department cannot unilaterally increase the compensation beyond Rs10 lakh. Such decisions need to be submitted for the cabinet's consideration.
The financial requirements of the forest department in 2023 differ significantly from those in 2019. The chief minister is now directly involved in addressing this issue. They have requested a report on immediate actions and potential methods for resource collection. Consequently, we are currently undergoing a process to address these concerns.
The human-animal conflict has recently become a political matter in Kerala.
That is the problem. It should not be politicized. Another challenge arises from the emergence of new organisations claiming to be working for the welfare of wild animals. The issues surrounding the wild tusker Arikomban are a direct result of the actions taken by these animal lovers' groups.
Initially, our position was that Arikomban should be captured and, as had been done in previous cases, treated at an elephant centre to provide a conducive environment for it. However, when people initiated a legal battle against our plan in the Kerala High Court, the court ruled that the tusker should neither be shot nor be placed under the custody of the forest department. Subsequently, representatives from Chinnakanal, who were facing troubles caused by the tusker, approached the court, leading to a decision to relocate the elephant to Parambikulam. However, representatives from Parambikulam also approached the court, which then formed an expert committee to determine a suitable place for the tusker's release. Periyar Tiger Reserve was identified as the recommended location by the expert committee. We complied with the court's order and successfully released the tusker in Periyar. Currently, the tusker is in Tamil Nadu, and now a portion of the troubles faced by the people of Chinnakanal is being experienced by the people of Tamil Nadu.
The Tamil Nadu government plans to capture the tusker and release it into a deep forest. The fact is, if these people truly care for the elephant, they should allow the government to protect it. Wildlife protection is a comprehensive subject, and our focus is on finding the best possible means of protection. Decisions must be made based on that feasibility.
I can proudly state that the forest department has become more efficient in recent times. During Mission Arikomban, all individuals, including senior officers, worked diligently and earnestly. Even the same judge who ordered the translocation of the tusker himself commended the 150 individuals who participated in the mission.
We must act in accordance with central laws while also bearing the responsibility of protecting the lives of citizens. Balancing these two responsibilities is a major task. Instead of being treated as adversaries, the department requires the support and cooperation of the public and media to effectively address the issue of human-animal conflicts.
