11 hours ago
As monsoon and wildlife cause damages, how the government can protect farmer incomes
Written by Gurudas Nulkar and Milind Watve
As farmers across India grapple with unpredictable monsoons and fluctuating market prices, a silent predator is devouring their livelihoods, one crop at a time. Fleeting blackbucks and dancing peacocks might charm city folk, but are turning into a nightmare for farmers. Since the beginning of settled agriculture, wild animals have been known to trample farms and raid crops. Human attacks by carnivores, particularly tigers, are newsworthy, but financial losses inflicted by wild herbivore raids are often underreported.
At the Centre for Sustainable Development at the Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, Pune, we surveyed over 1,200 affected farmers from the different agro-climatic regions of Maharashtra and conducted in-depth interviews of farmers in the coastal belt of Konkan. Using a mixed-method approach that integrated qualitative and quantitative data, we accessed multiple data sources and used Fermi estimates. Our study noted crop damages by macaques, langurs, blackbucks, chinkaras, Indian gaur, deer, nilgai, sambar, wild boars, giant squirrels, porcupines, elephants, peacocks, and parakeets.
Most earlier studies employed a visual inspection to estimate crop damages, but the losses extend beyond that. Farmers face increased expenses for protective measures such as guarding and fencing, and seasonal delays can inflict losses. Indirect impacts include farmers abandoning agriculture or specific crops, shifting to suboptimal farming patterns, and reducing expenses in better agricultural practices due to the impending risk. Even the traditional practice of cultivating kitchen gardens, a vital source of food for many rural families, has been significantly curtailed in regions like Konkan due to wildlife raids, forcing families to incur additional expenses by purchasing vegetables from markets. Then there are losses to society. Farms employ labour, which is a crucial source of income for landless and land-owning individuals. When a crop is destroyed in mid-season, labourers and other downstream stakeholders also face a loss of income. Using these data, we arrived at reasonably fair estimates of net farmer income losses.
By accounting for invisible damages and protection costs incurred by the farmers, our study estimates the net agricultural loss in Maharashtra due to wildlife raids to be between Rs 10,000 and 40,000 crore per year. Compared to this, in the period 2020-24, the forest department disbursed a total compensation of Rs 210 crores.
Lack of standardisation of damage assessment procedures, farmers' ignorance of protocols, complex bureaucratic procedures, and the fact that compensation covers only conspicuously visible damages while neglecting the indirect losses. The government compensation is a fraction of the actual loss, and the amount does not reveal the enormity of the problem in the state.
We studied the Maharashtra Payment of Compensation for Loss, Injury, or Damage Caused by Wild Animals Act, 2023, Government Resolution (GR), and the compensation protocol. For claiming compensation, the GR requires a panchnama in the presence of one official each from the departments of forest, revenue, and agriculture. This is neither easy nor timely, as the procedure sets a 14-day timeline for the panchnama. There is poor awareness among farmers, especially the illiterate ones, and some farmers are hesitant to indulge in the time-consuming bureaucratic claim procedures. Government data between 2020 and 2024 shows that only 48 per cent of the claims were accepted and 37 per cent were paid. The affected farmers were highly dissatisfied with the compensation protocol of the Forest Department of Maharashtra and stated that the damages are often undervalued, and in some instances, the amount recorded on the panchnama is also not fully reimbursed.
Some other findings from this study are noteworthy. Among the 1,200 respondents, 24 per cent said that wildlife crop raids are the primary reason for their income loss, while 54 per cent reported discontinuation of at least one crop. In the Konkan survey, our estimates suggest an annual loss of between ₹1,17,000 and ₹1,33,000 per hectare is inflicted upon farmers. When we include damages to kitchen gardens, the combined annual losses in Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts are estimated at ₹5,677 crore per annum. Studies from around the Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve suggest that crop yields could nearly double at a distance of 5 km from the forest boundary compared to those closer to it. Even with active guarding, there is a 50 per cent loss due to wild animals. Experiments by Watve and his team using his 'support cum reward' method showed that agricultural output near protected areas could increase by 2.5 to 4 times with appropriate support and incentives.
As the government confronts the challenge of doubling farmer incomes, a fair, simple, and timely compensation protocol can lead to significant improvement in farmer incomes. Moreover, as three departments are involved in the compensation process, it needs more accountability. Innovative approaches like the 'support cum reward' method can reduce the load on the officials of the forest department. There is an urgent need for empirical research to find the root causes of herbivore raids and assess long-term mitigation measures. India is a megadiverse country. Formulating a clear policy for human-wildlife coexistence and establishing a practical management system are critical for wildlife conservation and securing farmers' future.
Every wildlife conflict weakens the trust between farmers and forest officials. This is not a clash between economics and ecology, but rather a call for integrated conservation policies that holistically alleviate the burden borne by farming communities. Successful conservation and coexistence necessitate a balanced economic perspective to ensure justice for those who suffer. Our experience shows that farmers are willing to participate in resolving the conflict and finding long-term solutions, and the forest department will be happy to reduce their administrative work of handling conflict issues, which leaves them more time for conservation.
Nulkar is director, Centre for Sustainable Development, Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics and Watve is retired professor, IISER Pune, and an independent researcher
