Experts question Kerala’s move to assess carrying capacity of forests and conduct wildlife census to mitigate conflicts

Published 8 June 2026 · politics

Environmentalists and wildlife experts have questioned the Kerala government’s proposal to assess the carrying capacity of the State’s forests and conduct a wildlife census as

Environmentalists and wildlife experts have questioned the Kerala government’s proposal to assess the carrying capacity of the State’s forests and conduct a wildlife census as part of efforts to address human-wildlife conflict, arguing that it risks reducing a complex ecological issue to wildlife numbers while overlooking habitat degradation, forest fragmentation and human pressures on forest ecosystems. They also challenged Forest Minister Shibu Baby John’s assertions on elephant populations and tiger territory requirements, calling for scientific assessments of forest health before drawing conclusions about wildlife “overpopulation”. Announcing a 100-day action plan to tackle human-wildlife conflict, Mr. John said the government would approach the Wildlife Institute of India (WII), Dehradun, to study the carrying capacity of Kerala’s forests and evaluate their ability to support wildlife populations, particularly elephants and tigers, with a focus on regions such as Wayanad, where the issue is especially acute. Forest department officials said wildlife censuses were already being conducted and would be intensified as part of a State-wide assessment of wild animal populations.

John said preliminary figures suggested the elephant population had doubled, though the department currently relied on estimates. The Minister also said a tiger typically requires about 20 sq km of territory, but in Wayanad each tiger has access to only around 4 sq km, which he said was contributing to the rise in tiger-related conflicts. Human imapact Speaking to The Hindu, P.S. Easa, a member of the Board for Wildlife, said any carrying-capacity assessment must consider human settlements, human activities and their impact on wildlife habitats. Given the large human and wildlife populations that share the State’s landscape, the focus should be on understanding the effects of human presence on habitats and wildlife, he said. Easa cautioned against viewing the WII as having a ready-made solution and said the government should undertake a rigorous scientific assessment and seek “independent expert” opinions before arriving at conclusions.

He questioned claims that reliable wildlife data were lacking, noting that elephant and tiger populations are already monitored, the latter through camera-trap surveys. Any carrying-capacity study, he said, must have a clearly defined methodology and, in the case of Wayanad, treat it as part of the larger Nilgiri landscape rather than an isolated unit. Easa also disputed the Minister’s claim on tiger territory size, saying it varies according to habitat conditions, vegetation and prey availability and cannot be reduced to a fixed benchmark. He stressed the need to assess prey populations, including deer, to determine whether Wayanad can sustain its tiger and leopard populations, adding that prey scarcity could be pushing tigers out of forests. The Wayanad Prakrithi Samrakshana Samithi (WPSS) criticised the carrying-capacity study, arguing that priority should instead be given to studying forest degradation, habitat loss, encroachment, invasive species, monoculture plantations, forest fires and unregulated tourism to mitigate human-wildlife conflict.