UDTR Global Rights of Nature Radar

Human Wildlife Conflict in a Developing India: Projections, Mitigation Strategies, and Legislative Needs by 2047

Identification

Public canonical key

doi:10.64388/irev9i12-1718925

Authors

Dr. Mukul Baijal · Rachit Baijal

Reported year

2026

Reported language

en

Source type

article

First detected

2026-11-09T19:18:30.363133+00:00

Last metadata observation

2026-11-09T19:18:30.363133+00:00

Last HTTP verification

Not checked

Institutions reported by the source

Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University

Documentary abstract — original language

Human-wildlife conflict has become a central ecological, livelihood, public safety and governance challenge in India. By 2047, the pressure points are expected to intensify because economic expansion, linear infrastructure, peri-urban growth, changing cropping systems, climate variability and the recovery of some large mammals will increasingly overlap in shared landscapes. This paper examines the contemporary Indian conflict landscape, with particular attention to elephants, tigers, leopards, wild pigs, blue bulls, bears, crocodiles, snakes and urban-adapted wildlife. It uses a scenario-based method to project conflict pathways to 2047 and argues that India cannot rely only on compensation, capture or relocation after an incident has occurred. A national transition is required from episodic conflict response to statutory coexistence planning. The analysis finds that the existing framework has important strengths, including the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Project Tiger and Elephant, the National Wildlife Action Plan 2017-2031, the National Human-Wildlife Conflict Mitigation Strategy and Action Plan, and the recent species-specific guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. However, it also identifies major gaps: fragmented data systems, uneven compensation delivery, weak corridor protection outside protected areas, inadequate integration of agriculture and insurance policy, limited legal status for rapid response teams and insufficient recognition of local communities as co-managers of coexistence. The paper recommends a 2047 legal and institutional package built around a National Human-Wildlife Coexistence Mission, a statutory conflict registry, legally secured ecological corridors, time-bound compensation and insurance, district-level rapid response units, infrastructure impact audits, local coexistence committees and a clearer procedure for handling dangerous individual animals while preserving the high protection standard of Indian wildlife law. The conclusion is that human safety and wildlife conservation need not be treated as opposing goals. They can be reconciled through landscape planning, accountable governance and community-centered risk reduction.

Identifiers

OPENALEX

W7164914599

DOI

10.64388/irev9i12-1718925

Documentary context

Documentary family

Scholarship

Source-reported types

article

Jurisdictions studied — explicit sources

IN

Natural entities mentioned

Forest · Species · Landscape

Entity mentions are not evidence of legal recognition. Jurisdiction studied is separate from author affiliation country.

Sources

OpenAlex · Record 1 · Record 2

• DOI · https://doi.org/10.64388/irev9i12-1718925
• OpenAlex · https://openalex.org/W7164914599

Documented bibliographic relations

Source-declared references and links; they do not establish legal support or UGLC qualification. Up to 20 outgoing references are displayed.

• openalex:w1543529592 · CITES
• openalex:w3199066011 · CITES
• openalex:w4226342853 · CITES
• openalex:w4401742715 · CITES

0 incoming references within the detected corpus

Documentary status

Relevance pending

Library

This identity is not yet included in the Legal Library.