UPSC Alert: Chhattisgarh hikes wildlife attack compensation to ₹12 lakh

25 Oct UPSC Alert: Chhattisgarh hikes wildlife attack compensation to ₹12 lakh

✎ State governments may provide ex-gratia compensation for human fatalities due to wildlife attacks, with the quantum determined by state policy and judicial guidelines.

Subject Relevance — Where This Topic Fits

• GS Paper II — Governance, Administration and Challenges  |  GS Paper III — Environment and Biodiversity
• Prelims: Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA), Schedule I species under Wildlife Protection Act, State Wildlife Boards, Forest Rights Act, 2006
• Essay: Human-Wildlife Conflict: Balancing Conservation and Livelihood Security

Quick Revision: State governments may provide ex-gratia compensation for human fatalities due to wildlife attacks, with the quantum determined by state policy and judicial guidelines.

Why is this in the news?

The Government of Chhattisgarh has proposed an increase in compensation for human fatalities caused by wildlife attacks from ₹6 lakh to ₹12 lakh. This decision, pending state government approval, reflects a recalibration of state policy in response to rising human-wildlife conflict and judicial directives. The proposal follows a comparative review of compensation frameworks in neighbouring states and aligns with the Supreme Court’s guidelines on balancing wildlife conservation with human welfare.

Background

• Human-wildlife conflict has escalated in central India due to habitat fragmentation, expanding agricultural frontiers, and increasing wildlife populations, particularly of Schedule I species.
• Chhattisgarh, part of the Central Indian Tiger Landscape, reports frequent incidents involving tigers, leopards, elephants, and wild boars, especially in districts bordering protected areas.
• The existing compensation of ₹6 lakh per human death has not been increased for several years, failing to account for inflation or the socio-economic impact on affected families.
• The Supreme Court, in *T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India* (2021), has underscored the state’s duty to mitigate human-wildlife conflict through compensation and preventive measures.
• Neighbouring states such as Maharashtra (₹20 lakh), Karnataka (₹15 lakh), and Kerala (₹10 lakh) have revised compensation upwards, prompting Chhattisgarh to undertake a similar exercise.

What is the Wildlife Compensation Framework in India?

• The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, is the primary legislation governing wildlife conservation and human-wildlife conflict management in India, with Schedule I species accorded the highest protection.
• Compensation is disbursed through state wildlife boards, which assess claims based on evidence such as post-mortem reports, FIRs, and local inquiry reports, ensuring procedural fairness.
• Schedule I species, which include tigers, leopards, elephants, and crocodiles, are prioritised in compensation schemes due to their ecological importance and the higher risk they pose to human life.
• The National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) and state forest departments conduct periodic reviews of compensation schemes to align them with inflation, judicial precedents, and socio-economic realities.
• Preventive measures, such as the installation of solar-powered fences, community awareness programmes, and relocation of problem animals, are often paired with compensation to address root causes of conflict.
• The Forest Rights Act, 2006, recognises the rights of forest-dwelling communities, including their entitlement to compensation for wildlife-related losses, reinforcing the state’s duty of care.
• Judicial interventions, such as the Supreme Court’s directives in *In Re: T.N. Godavarman* (2021), have emphasised the need for states to adopt a holistic approach, combining compensation with habitat management and community engagement.

Key Features

Feature	Significance
Increased compensation amount (₹12 lakh)	Provides enhanced financial relief to families affected by wildlife attacks, addressing inflation and rising costs of living.
Inclusion of Schedule-I species	Expands coverage to include high-risk wildlife such as tigers, elephants, and crocodiles, ensuring broader protection for vulnerable communities.
State Wildlife Board approval process	Ensures multi-stakeholder deliberation, incorporating ecological, legal, and social perspectives before policy implementation.
Benchmarking with neighbouring states	Demonstrates comparative policy analysis to align compensation with regional standards, enhancing equity and effectiveness.
Timely disbursement mechanism	Proposes structured payment process post-government approval, reducing delays in relief distribution to affected families.

Why it Matters

Economic

• Augments household income for affected families, mitigating economic vulnerability in rural and forest-adjacent regions.
• Reduces out-of-pocket expenditure on medical or funeral costs, thereby lowering financial distress.
• Encourages sustainable coexistence between human settlements and wildlife habitats by providing tangible support.

Social

• Strengthens trust in state institutions by ensuring prompt and adequate compensation for wildlife-induced fatalities.
• Promotes social equity by prioritising marginalised communities residing near forest fringes.
• Reduces psychological trauma by acknowledging loss through structured financial relief.

Ecological

• Supports wildlife conservation efforts by addressing human-wildlife conflict through policy measures rather than punitive actions.
• Encourages habitat management practices that reduce human-wildlife encounters.
• Aligns with global biodiversity goals by protecting endangered species and their ecosystems.

Legal

• Complies with constitutional directives (Article 21) to protect life and livelihoods, interpreted to include mitigation of wildlife threats.
• Adheres to Supreme Court guidelines on compensation for wildlife attacks, ensuring procedural fairness.
• Provides a legal framework for future policy revisions based on empirical data and stakeholder feedback.

Challenges

1. Implementation and Disbursement Delays

• Risk of bureaucratic inertia leading to prolonged approval processes despite government sanction.
• Need for robust monitoring mechanisms to prevent misappropriation or exclusion of eligible beneficiaries.
• Ensuring transparency in documentation and verification to avoid disputes over claims.

UPSC Link: GS III: Environment & Disaster Management

2. Coverage Gaps for Non-Schedule Species

• Exclusion of common but hazardous species (e.g., monkeys, wild boars) from compensation, despite significant human-wildlife conflict.
• Potential underreporting of attacks by species not listed in Schedule-I, leading to inequitable relief distribution.
• Requirement for periodic review of species inclusion based on attack frequency and severity.

UPSC Link: GS III: Environment & Disaster Management

3. Funding Sustainability

• Dependence on state budget allocations may lead to fiscal constraints during economic downturns.
• Need for innovative financing mechanisms (e.g., compensatory afforestation funds, CSR contributions) to ensure long-term viability.
• Balancing compensation amounts with fiscal prudence to avoid resource diversion from other critical welfare schemes.

UPSC Link: GS III: Environment & Disaster Management

4. Awareness and Accessibility

• Low awareness among forest-fringe communities about compensation eligibility and application processes.
• Language barriers and digital divide may hinder access to information and claim submission.
• Proactive outreach through local institutions (e.g., gram panchayats, forest departments) is essential for effective implementation.

UPSC Link: GS II: Governance & Public Policy

5. Human-Wildlife Conflict Escalation

• Increased human settlements near forests may exacerbate conflicts despite compensation measures.
• Need for integrated strategies combining compensation with habitat management and community education.
• Potential for retaliatory killings of wildlife due to perceived inadequacy of relief measures.

UPSC Link: GS III: Environment & Disaster Management

Challenges — UPSC Perspective

Issue	Concern
Verification of claims	Risk of fraudulent claims or exclusion of genuine beneficiaries due to inadequate documentation.
Regional disparities in attack frequency	High-incidence areas may require higher allocations, straining state resources.
Inter-departmental coordination	Delays in disbursement due to lack of synchronisation between forest, revenue, and finance departments.
Climate change impacts	Increased frequency of human-wildlife encounters due to habitat fragmentation and resource scarcity.
Cultural sensitivities	Local beliefs or stigma associated with wildlife attacks may discourage claim submissions.

Way Forward

• Establish a dedicated grievance redressal mechanism for timely resolution of compensation disputes.
• Conduct periodic reviews of species inclusion in Schedule-I based on attack data and ecological assessments.
• Launch awareness campaigns in local languages, utilising community leaders and forest department networks.
• Develop a digital portal for claim submissions to streamline processes and reduce bureaucratic delays.
• Explore public-private partnerships for supplementary funding through CSR initiatives or wildlife conservation trusts.
• Integrate compensation schemes with habitat management programs to reduce human-wildlife conflict at source.
• Strengthen inter-state coordination to harmonise compensation norms and share best practices.
• Monitor and publish annual reports on compensation disbursement to ensure transparency and accountability.

UPSC Value Addition

Prelims Practice Questions

Q1. Consider the following statements regarding compensation for wildlife attacks in India:
1. The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 mandates a uniform compensation amount across all states for human deaths due to wildlife attacks.
2. Schedule I species under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 include the tiger, leopard, and elephant.
3. The National Wildlife Action Plan (NWAP) 2017-2031 recommends state-specific compensation frameworks for wildlife attacks.

How many of the above statements are correct?

1. Only one
2. Only two
3. All three
4. None

Answer: All three — Statement 1 is incorrect as the Wildlife Protection Act does not mandate a uniform compensation amount; it is determined by state policies. Statements 2 and 3 are correct as Schedule I includes tiger, leopard, and elephant, and NWAP recommends state-specific frameworks.

Q2. Assertion (A): The Forest Rights Act, 2006 provides for compensation to forest dwellers affected by wildlife attacks.
Reason (R): The Forest Rights Act, 2006 primarily focuses on the recognition of forest rights and does not explicitly address compensation for wildlife attacks.

Options:
A. Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A.
B. Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A.
C. A is true, but R is false.
D. A is false, but R is true.

Answer: ? — Assertion (A) is false as the Forest Rights Act does not explicitly provide for compensation for wildlife attacks. Reason (R) is true as the Act focuses on forest rights recognition.

Q3. Match the following pairs regarding wildlife compensation schemes in India:

Column I (State) | Column II (Compensation amount for human death due to wildlife attack)
— | —
A. Chhattisgarh (Proposed) | 1. ₹10 lakh
B. Kerala | 2. ₹15 lakh
C. Karnataka | 3. ₹20 lakh
D. Maharashtra | 4. ₹12 lakh

Options:
A. A-4, B-1, C-2, D-3
B. A-3, B-2, C-1, D-4
C. A-2, B-3, C-4, D-1
D. A-1, B-4, C-3, D-2

1. A
2. B
3. C
4. D

Answer: A — The correct match is: Chhattisgarh (Proposed) – ₹12 lakh, Kerala – ₹10 lakh, Karnataka – ₹15 lakh, Maharashtra – ₹20 lakh.

Mains Practice Question

✍ The proposed enhancement of compensation for human loss due to wildlife attacks in Chhattisgarh from ₹6 lakh to ₹12 lakh reflects a broader policy shift towards addressing human-wildlife conflict. Critically examine the legal, ecological, and socio-economic dimensions of such compensation frameworks in India. Also, analyse how these frameworks align with the objectives of the National Wildlife Action Plan (NWAP) 2017-2031. (15 Marks)

Approach: MODEL-ANSWER SKELETON:

1. **Legal Framework**:
– Wildlife Protection Act, 1972: Schedule I species (e.g., tiger, leopard, elephant) and state discretion in compensation.
– Forest Rights Act, 2006: Recognition of forest dwellers’ rights but no explicit provision for wildlife attack compensation.
– State Forest Policies: Role of state governments in determining compensation amounts (e.g., Chhattisgarh’s proposed increase).

2. **Ecological Dimensions**:
– Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) as a consequence of habitat fragmentation and encroachment.
– Need for integrated management plans under NWAP 2017-2031, including compensation as a mitigation measure.
– Balance between wildlife conservation and human livelihood security.

3. **Socio-Economic Dimensions**:
– Compensation as a tool for reducing vulnerability of forest-dependent communities.
– Challenges: Delayed disbursement, inadequate amounts, and lack of awareness among affected communities.
– Comparative analysis with other states (e.g., Maharashtra’s ₹20 lakh, Kerala’s ₹10 lakh).

4. **Alignment with NWAP 2017-2031**:
– NWAP’s emphasis on participatory governance and conflict mitigation.
– Compensation as part of broader strategies: habitat restoration, community-based conservation, and early warning systems.

5. **Critical Evaluation**:
– Whether compensation alone is sufficient or if structural solutions (e.g., relocation, habitat management) are needed.
– Role of judicial interventions (e.g., Supreme Court directives on HWC).

6. **Conclusion**:
– Compensation frameworks must be part of a multi-pronged approach to HWC, balancing ecological sustainability and social justice.

Source: amarujala.com

Chhattisgarh PCS (CGPSC) — State PCS Practice

Prelims: As per the recent Chhattisgarh government notification, what is the revised compensation amount provided to the kin of a person killed in a wildlife attack in the state?

1. Rs. 5 lakh
2. Rs. 8 lakh
3. Rs. 10 lakh
4. Rs. 12 lakh

Answer: Rs. 12 lakh — The Chhattisgarh government has increased the compensation for wildlife attack fatalities from Rs. 5 lakh to Rs. 12 lakh as per the latest notification.

Mains: Discuss the socio-economic implications of wildlife attacks on tribal communities in Chhattisgarh and evaluate the effectiveness of the state government’s compensation policy in addressing their grievances. (200 words)

---

Generated by AanyaAi for educational purpose.

---

Related guides on our sites

• Current affairs for upsc 2026
• How to prepare for GS paper 1 for UPSC CSE mains exam
• Best UPSC coaching for IFOS exam
• Best geography optional coaching