A key meeting of the Parliamentary Consultative Committee of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change took place on 5 August 2026, in New Delhi. Under the guidance of Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav, the gathering included Members of Parliament, senior ministry officials, and state representatives. Union Minister of State Kirti Vardhan Singh also joined the proceedings. The meeting focused on reviewing actions taken after the last session on 18 December 2025, while mapping the way forward for addressing human–wildlife conflict.
The Ministry explained that human-elephant conflict is the most common issue in several regions. However, conflicts involving tigers, leopards, bears, rhinoceroses, wild boars, gaurs, and primates were also discussed. It was stressed that each ecosystem needs its own management plan, tailored to the unique environmental and social conditions of the area.
An important update was the creation of the Centre of Excellence on Human–Wildlife Conflict (CoE-HWC) in Coimbatore. Announced by the Prime Minister during a National Board for Wildlife meeting, the center serves as a key national institution for scientific research, policy development, and community-based strategies. It is designed to foster long-term solutions to the challenge of coexistence between people and wildlife.
The meeting also highlighted the launch of the National Human–Wildlife Conflict Portal on 10 July 2026. This digital platform acts as a centralized system for tracking incidents, analyzing data, and facilitating decision-making to manage conflicts more effectively across the country.
State Presentations and Initiatives
Six states—Assam, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh—shared their conflict management strategies and local experiences. Assam introduced the concept of zonal Human–Wildlife Conflict Risk Reduction Committees, focusing on restoring habitats, deploying early warning systems, and involving local communities in conservation. The Committee acknowledged the zonal planning model and suggested sharing its success with other conflict-prone regions.
Karnataka’s presentation emphasized a six-pillar model that includes engineering solutions, artificial intelligence-driven surveillance, rapid response teams, community volunteer networks, and an e-Parihara digital compensation system. The state also proposed a National Human–Wildlife Conflict Mission and stronger inter-State coordination for transboundary elephant populations. The Committee supported the replication of these innovative methods in other areas.
Kerala’s approach included declaring human-wildlife conflict a State-Specific Disaster, enabling quicker response and resource allocation. The state identified 273 Panchayats in conflict-affected zones and implemented initiatives like the SARPA volunteer program and Jana Jagaratha Samitis to foster community action. It also focused on restoring wildlife corridors and managing habitats. The Committee praised the state’s institutional model and urged wider adoption.
Madhya Pradesh showcased its use of AI-enabled surveillance and GPS tracking systems, including a project called Gajrakshak to monitor elephants. The state also developed species-specific strategies, procedures for compensation, and eco-development committees to engage local populations. The Committee was impressed by the use of technology to enhance conservation efforts.
Uttarakhand introduced a strategic plan that included setting up an Integrated Command and Control Centre and a 24×7 helpline for rapid assistance. The state emphasized habitat restoration and long-term planning for peaceful coexistence between people and wildlife. The Committee appreciated the volunteer-based monitoring systems and the state’s commitment to adaptive management.
Technology and Community Integration
The discussions underlined the need for a balanced approach combining ecological protection with the security of human lives and livelihoods. The use of modern tools like GIS, artificial intelligence, drones, and predictive analytics was highlighted as essential for managing conflicts in a scientifically sound and efficient manner.
The Committee also emphasized the importance of training frontline staff, improving the speed and transparency of compensation for victims, and raising public awareness about wildlife issues. Encouraging local communities to participate in conservation was deemed crucial for long-term success.
All six states emphasized the value of landscape-specific planning, rapid response strategies, habitat improvement, and scientific monitoring. For example, Assam’s zonal committees aimed to address conflicts at a regional level, combining both ecological and social factors.
Technology-driven monitoring was a common focus. Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh used command centers and AI surveillance to detect and respond to threats. At the same time, Kerala’s community-based initiatives, like the SARPA program, showcased how local engagement can reinforce broader conflict management goals.