About 10 people were fatally injured through encounters with wildlife in Kerala during that last two weeks. This may be unusually high within a short period of time. Ordinary people, especially those who live in areas where such attacks take place, are agitated. Opposition parties, as expected from them, launched public agitations. There is a demand for higher and immediate compensation. There is also a demand for shooting one animal even a few days after the incident. I can understand the emotions behind such demands. 

In my view, certain ideas that are circulating after these incidents are incorrect, and hence solutions based on these are likely to be ineffective. 

It is obvious that the killing of an animal after the incident does not serve any purpose if it is not the same animal that causes multiple killings. There is no evidence to think that the killing of one animal is likely to deter other animals. (This is the assumption behind the death penalty for human criminals). There have to be a lot more preventive actions if the purpose is to reduce the frequency of such incidents. 

There is a perception that animals come out of forests due to the decline of the quality of ecosystems or forests. This in my view is less likely to be true if we consider the situation in South-West India. The quality or intensity of forest protection has increased, and this has enhanced the quality of forests (even if it may not have returned back to the situation of say 100 years ago). The number and hence the movement of wildlife in forests have gone up notably in Kerala and nearby areas.

Given the increase in the number of tigers in forests in South-West India, one can infer that even the whole ecosystem has become healthier. Hence the reason for animals to come out of forest territory is that their number has increased relative to the size of forests. It is not easy to increase of the area of forests to accommodate the growing number of animals. 

The movement of animals in human settlements has become a common sight. In my village where there was hardly any wild boar during my childhood, currently witnesses frequent damages to crops by this animal. Viewing wild elephant does not require travel to forests any more in this part of India. Roads which are used for public transport for the last 100 years see the presence of these animals currently. 

There are `unusual’ changes on the human habitations also. People’s dependence on forests has come down. In fact, there would have been a lot more incidents like what happened last week, if people migrated there in the early and middle part of twentieth century had continued their dependence on forest land. The education of younger generation, the shifting away from agriculture as the main source of income, the reduction in income from rubber plantations, etc. have reduced this dependence on lands adjacent to forests. However, there is still a section of poorer and lower middle-class, and also tribal communities who live very close to or within forests and they encounter wildlife frequently.

We should not presume that such encounters can be avoided fully. Hence there have to be several strategies to reduce `unhappy encounters’ and to have a humane approach if there are such encounters. Clearing boundaries with human settlements, and creating systems that discourage animals from entering farms, alarms based on recognising animal movements, and other technological measures have to be explored. It may be better to explore whether appropriate physical gears (protective measures) can be used when people move into areas where wildlife is present. If so, these can be distributed by the government. 

If there is an attack, there have to be arrangements to quickly shift patients to nearby hospitals. Improving hospital and ambulance facilities in forest-adjacent areas is to be an important strategy. There has to be a quicker transfer of financial support to relatives of those who are killed or severely injured. In the long-run there can be an insurance for potential compensation for wild-life attack financed partly by the state and also by people who depend on or move in forests. 

There may have to be a few longer-term changes. First, is the acceleration of the shift of human settlements away from forests. Landslides and extreme natural events have already necessitated the shifting of a set of people who live in high-slope areas but it is yet to happen. Education and taking up jobs in service/industrial sector in urban areas have to be seen as the source of livelihood for the younger generation of people  who live very close to forest areas. Generous support for this shift in habitation has to be provided by the state. 

Forest management has to be a lot more sophisticated rather than continuing with the current approach of bluntly protecting territories. There can be a lot more monitoring of the growth and movement of animals. Controlled hunting of members of those species whose numbers are growing can be practiced carefully (and such a practice is common in developed countries). If we cannot do so, it is only a reflection of our incapabilities and not our moral virtue. 

There were only one tribal community member among the cases of deaths that I’ve mentioned in the beginning. Given that they continue to be a significant number of people among those who move in or live closer to forests, this may be an indication of their proficiency in warding off wildlife attacks. However even one such case is to be noted. This may be used as an excuse for the non-implementation of the FRA. The right approach is to encourage tribal youth to learn and use their indigenous knowledge to minimise attacks from wild animals. 

This is a complex problem and needs rational (and not emotional) deliberations and an integrated approach. 

End Note: The content and opinions expressed are that of the author, and are not necessarily endorsed by/do not necessarily reflect the views of Azim Premji University.