The British colonial regime used natural resources including forest and cultivable land in colonies as a potential source of surplus extraction for the state. Specific land tax was introduced to promote crops of imperial interest while designated acts and regulations were enacted to ensure that the forest resources were commodified to maximise the colonial state’s revenue on the one hand and attract capital to the natural resource sector on the other.

The colonial regime enacted the Indian Forest Act in 1865 and subsequently revised it in 1878 and 1927 only to scale up the magnitude of extraction of forest resources. The National Forest Policy of 1952 enacted by the Congress regime followed the same path of alienating peasants, Adivasis, and other farm-dependent people from forest fringe areas. In 1972, the Congress rule under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, enacted the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 (WLP).

The WLPA of 1972 and its subsequent amendments intended to attract capital to the natural resource sector including eco-tourism. The WLPA of 1972 is traceable to the Indian Board for Wildlife of 1952 (IBWL of 1952), established in conjunction with the National Forest Policy of 1952. The 44^th Constitutional Amendment was intended to keep the state governments away from the process of decision-making on items related to forests.

The IBWL of 1952 was replaced by the National Board for Wildlife in 2003 (NBWL 2003). A close perusal of the structure and composition of the IBWL of 1952 and its replacement in 2003 reveals the explicit class interest of the union government with respect to exploitation of natural resources. The IBWL of 1952 and its revised form of 2003 did not have a even single representative from the Adivasis, peasants and workers. The human-wildlife conflict (HWC) as we experience it today in its severity is an offshoot of various Acts and Ordinances enacted by the union governments since 1952.  

Why a Study on Human-Wildlife Conflict and Peasants in Kerala

There has been growing concern about the unprecedented spike in the HWC in India over the last few decades. It has been a fact that the neoliberal policies in 1991 have exposed the farm-dependent workforce in the country to myriad forms of vulnerabilities and a crisis of reproduction. The surge in HWC has intensified hardships, throwing vulnerable sections into precarious status. However, the union government is yet to pay adequate attention to this burning issue of the rural population, particularly the farm dependent population.

Despite the extensive research on HWC in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, research is centred around a singular, state-sanctioned narrative, blaming enhanced human activities by spreading settlements into wildlife habitats. International organisations largely adopt the same viewpoint, effectively absolving the state apparatus as neutral, powerless observers rather than active participants in the escalation of human-wildlife conflicts. There are exceptions to such mainstream standpoints on HWC and the concomitant loss to farmers due to crop raiding.

In a comprehensive study on wildlife attacks on crop production and the resulting loss to farmers in Maharashtra by the Centre for Sustainable Development of the Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics estimated that farmers in the state suffered a loss up to Rs 40,000 crore per annum in 2024. As there exists limited comparative literature for studies on crop loss estimation by farmers, the Maharashtra study can be taken as the bench mark.  

Kerala has been reporting a high incidence of HWC for the last few years. In 2024–25, 67 human deaths, 1,705 injuries, 466 livestock losses, and 6,295 instances of crop damage were reported officially in Kerala (Govt. of Kerala, 2025). The Wayanad district is a notable hotspot, accounting for 14 per cent of all human fatalities recorded in Kerala between 2012 and 2022.  These conflicts span over seven primary categories involving leopards, tigers, elephants, wild boars, monkeys, sloths, and snakes. The situation has worsened the everyday life and livelihood of 725 tribal settlements within or in the fringes of forest areas. The Forest Survey of India 2023 estimated that forests occupied 74.8 per cent of the geographical area of the Wayanad district. The Thirunelly Gram Panchayat is situated bordering the Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (WWS). Against this backdrop, the present study undertook a comprehensive household survey among farmers of different size classes and wage labourers, supplemented with in-depth interviews of key stakeholders.

Important Findings of the Study

1. Farmers in Thirunelly Gram Panchayat primarily cultivate coffee, banana, ginger, different varieties of tubers, areca nut and paddy. Beyond the direct destruction of crops by crop-raiding, farmers are forced to bear the heavy financial burden of installing protective measures, such as electric fencing, trenching to prevent the entry of elephants, fencing with iron rods and wood, and other measures of deterrents, which inflate production costs. The people live under a constant fear of attacks by elephants, tigers, leopards, monkeys, wild boars and other wild animals. A total of 27 incidents of death and fatal injuries were reported over the last five-year period. The data indicates that the number of deaths and injuries due to wildlife attacks have increased sharply after 2020. A significant portion of wildlife attack victims consist of middle-aged individuals and older adults. Specifically, most male victims fall within the 30 to 60 age brackets. Farmers and wage labourers in their prime working years face a higher risk of encounters due to engaging in outdoor livelihood activities.

• As many as 94 per cent of sample households reported that they were scared to move freely in the village and work in the field. More than 70 per cent of farmers reported to have relied on traditional, life-saving practices to deter wild animals from a distance; such as: (i) visual deterrents; (ii) auditory deterrents; and (iii) instrumental aids – using specific devices to create loud, intimidating sounds. Despite these efforts, people are forced to avoid nighttime travel, and have to be on motorised transport. It reflects the deep vulnerability and limited options of people living alongside wild animals. Massive outbreaks of wildlife attacks by different types occur at regular intervals even with the ‘so-called’ traditional wisdom. Although people suffer several hardships, they seldom resort to lethal mediums to scare away wild animals. A large number of people who have lost their life and suffered huge loss of crops due to wildlife attacks are Adivasis. More than 80 per cent of farmers reported that farming became an unviable enterprise in the village due to factors such as crop raiding, and cost escalation due to adoption of deterrents. On top of it, there is an uncertain market coupled with price volatility.
• Estimated Crop-loss due to HWC: Coffee farmers suffered a loss of Rs 42,211 per acre (40-50 per cent of the gross value of output) followed by banana farmers (Rs 48,367/acre), tuber cultivators (Rs 12,497/acre), and paddy at Rs 9,124 per acre due to wildlife attack in 2024-25. The magnitude of crop loss varied across different constituencies (there were 17 constituencies before delimitation in 2025) in the Thirunelly Gram Panchayat.
• Compensation to Farmers: Farmers lamented that they stopped seeking compensation due to complex and convoluted administrative processes, and intentional delays in the distribution of funds. The amount of compensation for actual crop loss or domesticated animal predation is too meagre, given the scale of actual loss and effort required to obtain it. In 2025, just 12.5 per cent of eligible farmers requested compensation. Of those applicants, only 5 out of 232 were successful. This dismal approval rate has left farmers disillusioned and reluctant to apply for wildlife-related crop damage.
• Impact of HWC on Wage Labourers: HWC has heavily disrupted local farming, with 73 per cent of farmers reported to have relied on daily wage workers for agricultural operations. Intensified HWC has forced 36 per cent of households to leave their fields fallow, while 52 per cent of farmers shifted from high-labour intensive vegetables and tubers to less vulnerable crops only to keep the land engaged. Paddy cultivation is one of the crops cultivated in the village having high employment elasticity per unit of area and farmers heavily rely on female workers from Scheduled Tribe communities for paddy operations. Paddy crop is an easy prey to wild boars, elephants, and deer. As farmers have abandoned paddy or cut cultivation from twice to once a year, available days of employment for agricultural workers dropped significantly, freezing female daily wages at Rs 400-450 (without food) for the past two years, whereas male workers have largely migrated to urban areas for work. Additionally, deer and peacock damage to coffee beans has discouraged plantation investment, as coffee productivity drops, labourers are forced to work extended hours simply to earn a standard daily wage.

In Lieu of a Conclusion

The study on human-wildlife conflict in the Thirunelly Gram Panchayat of Wayanad district revealed that local farmers are increasingly abandoning their land, either by leaving it uncultivated or selling it to developers for the construction of eco-tourist resorts. With 34 such resorts already operational and 14 more under construction in this small area, the impact is significant. Given that the local wildlife sanctuary serves as a corridor to tiger reserves in the neighbouring states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, temporary mitigation efforts like solar fencing are largely ineffective against species like elephants and tigers.

It is argued that a permanent solution requires organised, collective resistance by peasants, the Adivasi community, and other affected groups against restrictive legislations, specifically the Wildlife Protection Act (1972 and subsequent amendments) and the Indian Forest Act. Ultimately, it asserts that the Union Government must reform forest conservation and wildlife protection policies to prioritise the rights of indigenous and local communities to live safely in their ancestral lands.