1 INTRODUCTION

Human-driven species extinctions are a hallmark of the Anthropocene epoch we live in (Dirzo et al., 2014). Large-bodied vertebrates, particularly mammalian herbivores with unique ecological roles, are disproportionately endangered (Pringle et al., 2023). These large herbivores are threatened not only by direct persecution for meat and other body parts but also by competition from advancing human populations (Gordon, 2009). For example, several species of wild cattle, rhinoceroses, and elephants have similar resource needs to human settlements, such as flat terrain, accessibility to water, and productive tropical climates. This scenario aligns with the biological theory of competitive exclusion, which posits that in a shared environment, complete competitors cannot coexist indefinitely (Hardin, 1960). The contemporary range contraction in the natural habitats of many species of large herbivores in the world (Ripple et al., 2015) lends support to this theory. Alarmingly, current species extinction rates far exceed historical background rates (Ripple, Abernethy, et al., 2016; Ripple, Chapron, et al., 2016), underscoring the need for sustained conservation efforts to maintain the remnant populations of these endangered large herbivores. Paradoxically, some endangered large herbivores, such as the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), can pose a challenge to the safety and economic well-being of local communities, presenting a unique paradigm for management, which must reconcile conservation with human welfare.

Historically, elephants were widely distributed in Asia, stretching from the river basins of the Tigris–Euphrates in the west to the Yangtze–Kiang River in the east, encompassing most of the present-day Asian countries (Shoshani & Tassy, 1996; Sukumar, 2003). However, elephant ranges in Asia have undergone massive contractions, resulting in dramatic population declines. Today, Asia elephants are found in less than 7% of their historical range. Among the myriad causes of elephant range contraction, the primary driver has been habitat loss, predominantly due to agricultural expansion and the development of human settlements (Leimgruber et al., 2003). Current estimates place the Asian elephant population at about 50,000, distributed across 13 range countries (Williams et al., 2020). As per population viability models, for long-term conservation, a population size of over 1000 elephants is essential (Sukumar, 1995). By invoking this prescription, it appears that the viability of elephant populations in many Asian countries is precarious and subject to various degrees of risk and change (Leimgruber et al., 2008).

In contrast with the dismal population scenarios for elephants in much of Asia, India stands as a notable exception. Home to more than 60% of the extant wild Asia elephant population, India's elephant numbers have been reported to be relatively stable (All India Elephant Estimation 2017, Government of India, 2020). India has four major regional elephant populations, occurring in the northern, northeastern, east-central, and southern areas. Elephant habitats in India extend beyond Protected Areas, also including multiple-use forest areas outside of the Protected Area network. In fact, <25% of the elephants’ distributional range in India falls within these Protected Areas (Project Elephant, Government of India, 2020). There are well-connected, large tracts of forests constituting elephant habitats outside the Protected Area Network. Thus, it is crucial to recognize that these habitats, although not within the Protected Area Network, are not synonymous with nonforested areas. In India, the term “elephant habitat” encompasses both these designated Protected Areas and other forests such as “reserved forests,” “protected forests,” and others including seminatural habitats such as forest plantations. This broader habitat definition accounts for around 80% to 85% of elephants’ distributional range across the country (Project Elephant, Government of India, 2020). Elephants are frequently found in human-dominated areas, which are characterized by a high interspersion of forests and agricultural land, with the latter often being more prevalent (Williams et al., 2001). Unfortunately, it is often in these mixed landscapes—particularly at the interfaces of elephant habitats and along their perimeters—where negative human–elephant interactions are most common (Sukumar, 2003; Desai & Riddle, 2015). These interactions can occur both within the boundaries of elephant habitats and in the adjoining human-dominated areas.

In India, all four regional populations face varying degrees of negative human–elephant interactions. More than 5,00,000 marginal families reportedly suffer due to these conflicts (Rangarajan et al., 2010). Furthermore, numerous human and elephant fatalities occur annually, contributing to the urgency of this issue (unpublished data, Project Elephant, Government of India). Efforts to address these interactions can broadly be classified into short- and long-term strategies. While short-term strategies focus on addressing the proximate causes or symptoms of conflict, long-term approaches target the root causes (Sukumar, 2003). One of the primary underlying causes of these conflicts is the direct competition for space between humans and elephants (Balasubramaniam et al., 1995; Sukumar, 2003). Despite extensive research on negative human–elephant interactions, the variability in site-specific conflict intensity calls for data-driven prioritization efforts for effective conservation management. Given the dynamic nature of these conflicts, regular reassessment of spatial-temporal trends in elephant populations and conflict patterns would be pertinent for moving towards evidence-based elephant conservation.

As a country harboring the largest viable Asian elephant populations, India is at a crucial juncture in balancing elephant conservation with human welfare to ensure the long-term survival of these majestic creatures (Rangarajan et al., 2010). Thus, an introspection of the institutional framework and the enablers of elephant conservation in India is both timely and essential.

Additionally, India's archetype of elephant conservation could offer important lessons for other range countries. With this context, this study delves into various aspects of elephant conservation in India. We provide historical perspectives, explore the current administrative policies, examine elephant population trends, and extract long-term lessons from India's conservation experiences. We also present an overview of human–elephant conflict scenarios, drawing on data from the centralized all-India database maintained by Project Elephant, Government of India. Site-specific data on all forms of negative human-elephant interactions, including incidents of elephant mortalities, were recorded by the respective State Forest Departments at the division level and subsequently communicated to the State headquarters on a periodic basis. From there, the State headquarters sends the accumulated data to Project Elephant annually. Our analysis for this article draws on this data spanning the years 2009–2020, providing a comprehensive overview of human-elephant conflicts across India. We also identify the major challenges currently facing elephant conservation and look ahead to future strategies aimed at sustaining viable elephant populations in the wild.

2 HISTORIC AND CURRENT CONSERVATION PERSPECTIVES

India has a long history of elephant conservation (Bist, 2006). An ancient treatise on statecraft, Arthasastra, dating back to the Mauryan empire (300 BC to 300 AD), recommended the establishment of elephant sanctuaries. In these sanctuaries, hunting elephants was severely penalized, often with the death penalty for offenders (Bist et al., 2002). These protected areas, strategically located along state boundaries, bear a resemblance to the present-day situation in India. During British rule, the Tamil Nadu Wild Elephant Preservation Act of 1873 served as a legal precursor to modern elephant conservation (Bist et al., 2002). This was followed by the Elephant Preservation Act of 1879, which prohibited the killing of elephants throughout the country (Bist et al., 2002). After India's independence in 1947, one of the most powerful wildlife conservation laws in the world, the Wildlife (Protection) Act, was enacted in 1972 (Bist et al., 2002). The legislation accords the highest level of legal protection to elephants, regardless of whether they are in the wild or under human care. Furthermore, various legal instruments have been developed in India to safeguard the interests of elephants (Table 1).

Notwithstanding legal protection, elephant conservation has presented unique challenges, largely due to their extensive range requirements, propensity for direct conflict with human communities, and the perpetual demand for elephants’ body parts, particularly tusks. From the 1970s to the late 1990s, rampant poaching, fueled by the international ivory trade, decimated the male elephant population, skewing the sex ratio (male to female) (Sukumar, 2003). Even in some of the finest wildlife reserves, like the Periyar Wildlife Sanctuary in the Western Ghats, this imbalance was starkly evident with the male-to-female sex ratio recorded at 1:100 (Sukumar et al., 1998). Negative human-elephant interactions, previously perceived as minimal, started escalating in the 1980s in certain areas (unpublished data, Project Elephant; Sukumar et al., 2018). The 1990s marked the beginning of a period of significant economic progress in India, which necessitated the development of linear infrastructure and mineral mines, some of which were to pass through intact elephant habitats, resulting in habitat loss and fragmentation.

The combined impact of ivory poaching, escalating human-elephant conflicts, and increasingly fragmenting elephant habitats called for a mission-mode approach to elephant conservation. Furthermore, the limitations of individual Protected Areas and the Tiger Reserves became apparent, as these areas could not accommodate the extensive home ranges of elephants, which are typically five to 10 times larger than those of tigers. Thus, the need for a landscape approach to effectively conserve elephant populations was acknowledged. These recognitions heralded the launch of Project Elephant in 1992. Initiated as a centrally sponsored scheme, Project Elephant was designed to address critical issues facing elephant conservation and management.

3 DISTRIBUTION AND POPULATION TRENDS

3.2 Population trends and estimation techniques

Before India's independence in 1947, acclaimed forester F.W. Champion made one of the earliest attempts to estimate the elephant population along the Himalayan foothills (Rangarajan et al., 2010). The first systematic country-wide estimate of the elephant population in India was carried out during the 1980s under the guidance of the late J.C. Daniel of the Bombay Natural History Society and conducted by the Asian Elephant Specialist Group of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). This effort registered a population of 14,800–16,455 elephants in India (Bist, 2002). After Project Elephant came into being, a more systematic approach to population estimation was adopted, mandating a nationwide count every 5 years. In 2005, Project Elephant further refined its methodology by emphasizing the recording of population structure details. This marked the introduction of the Synchronized Elephant Population Estimation (SEPE) approach. In this approach, India's various elephant range states are coordinated to conduct surveys simultaneously to avoid duplication, given that elephant ranges in India often encompass two or more states. The SEPE consists of three distinct methods: (i) block count, which is a census without relying on techniques rooted in sampling theory; (ii) dung-based distance sampling, entailing foot transects to enumerate elephant dung, which is then used to estimate absolute densities of elephant populations; and (iii) water hole count, aimed at recording the age and sex structure of the elephant population by observing elephants at water holes (Varma et al., 2012). In the 2017 assessment, Project Elephant expanded the scope to include mapping elephant distribution as an additional objective.

India's elephant population estimation techniques have attracted internal criticism (Rangarajan et al., 2010; Jathanna et al., 2015) for their lack of statistical rigor, which some argue hinders the ability to detect crucial demographic changes. Critics have pointed out that the block count method does not adequately account for variable detectability and spatial sampling variations (Jathanna et al., 2015). Similarly, the dung-based distance-sampling approach faces challenges, as it relies on parameters such as elephant defecation rates and dung decay rates, which vary widely across India's diverse eco-climatic zones (Jathanna et al., 2015). In response to these concerns, the Government of India embarked on a synchronized approach for tiger and elephant population estimation in 2021. This new method experiments with the genetic mark–capture–recapture method (e.g., Gray et al., 2014), offering a potentially more robust way to estimate elephant populations across India. In addition to formal government-driven population estimation, numerous organizations have been encouraged to conduct population estimation at various sites (Madhusudan et al., 2015; Jathanna et al., 2015), contributing to more comprehensive and varied data collection.

Notwithstanding the varying methods of population estimation, country-wide elephant population estimates have been available in India since 1985 (Figure 1). The overall trend from this data indicates an initial population increase from 1985 to 1990. However, this growth subsequently leveled off, with numbers oscillating between 25,000 and 30,000 elephants. The population increase observed in the late 1980s raises questions about possible sampling artifacts, particularly as it was the first-ever nationwide effort to assess elephant populations. Interestingly, although India's elephant population is just 0.0021% of its human population, both populations have shown similar trends over the last three decades (Figure 1). The most recent all-India elephant population estimation, carried out in 2017, revealed that the southern region harbors the largest population, c. 14,000 elephants, followed by the northeastern region (c. 10,000 elephants), east-central region (c. 3100 elephants), and the north-western region (c. 2000 elephants) (Project Elephant, Government of India, 2020). The recent elephant population estimations carried out independently by the State Forest Departments of the southern states broadly align with the 2017 estimates provided by Project Elephant (TNFD, 2023; KFD, 2023).

4 TRENDS IN NEGATIVE HUMAN–ELEPHANT INTERACTIONS

The IUCN's Species Survival Commission (SSC) for Human-Wildlife Conflict and Coexistence defines human–wildlife conflicts as “struggles that emerge when elephant presence or behavior poses actual or perceived, direct and recurring threats to human interests or needs, leading to disagreements between groups of people and negative impacts on people and/or wildlife” (IUCN, 2023). This definition can be applied to negative human-elephant interactions, which comprise a range of detrimental effects on both people and elephants. From the human perspective, these interactions can lead to a combination of direct and indirect costs (Barua et al., 2013). Such indirect costs include living in perpetual fear, the loss of breadwinners in the family, health issues associated with crop guarding, psychological stress and trauma, impaired education for children, and various others that are often difficult to quantify (Thondhlana et al., 2020). The direct costs of negative human–elephant interactions to people include property losses in the form of damage to cultivated crops, farming equipment, houses, and grain storage structures, as well as occasional human casualties (Sukumar, 2003; Natarajan et al., 2021, 2023).

4.1 Human deaths attributed to negative human–elephant interactions

Although only a small fraction of interactions between people and elephants result in human fatalities, the loss of human life in conflict can have societal ramifications and is therefore considered the most acute form of negative human–elephant interaction. Thus, as highlighted by Natarajan et al. (2023), developing strategies to minimize threats to people's lives and livelihoods is crucial to fostering community support for elephant conservation. Despite various mitigation efforts, data indicate a steady rise in the average number of human deaths attributed to negative human–elephant interactions (Figure 2). Between 2009 and 2020, there were a total of 4642 fatalities, averaging 450 deaths per year (±63.7), as a result of these interactions. This increase not only indicates an actual increase in conflict incidences but also improvements in reporting and response mechanisms. Regionally, the east-central region experienced the highest toll, losing 1931 human lives, accounting for 41.5% of the reported conflict-related human deaths during this period. This is notable as this region harbors only 10% of India's elephant population. In comparison, the northeastern region recorded 1,605 human deaths, followed by the southern region (n = 962) and the northern region (n = 144).

5 LINEAR INFRASTRUCTURE-RELATED THREATS TO ELEPHANTS

India's linear infrastructure development and corresponding mineral mining have kept pace with its rapidly growing economy. During the last decade, India's railways, considered the main artery of the country, have been modernized, marked by a doubling of single lines, energization, an increase in operational speed, and a consequent increase in traffic volume. This expansion has had a notable impact on wildlife, with approximately 1340 km of railway network cutting across elephant habitats. Between 2009 and 2020, railway-related incidents caused the deaths of 176 elephants, at an annual average of 15.5 (±5.8). Elephant deaths due to railway lines were particularly high in the states of Assam and West Bengal, located in the northeastern region, followed by Odisha state in the east-central region and other states across India (Figure 3).

Alongside railways, India's elephants also face challenges from road networks, with c. 10,790 km of national highways and state highways passing through elephant habitats. Although direct road-induced elephant collisions are fewer than those on railways, it is recognized that roads have far-reaching fragmentation effects, which require urgent attention. In addition to the transportation network, c. 300 km of irrigation canals and c. 7230 km of power transmission lines pass through elephant habitats, adding to the complexity of habitat fragmentation. Direct mortality due to these other forms of physical infrastructure is comparatively low. However, with the expanding network of such infrastructures in elephant habitats, there is a concern that, as with increasing fragmentation, elephant mortalities could also increase. In recognition of these growing threats, emphasis is currently being placed on mitigation measures for which a basic guideline (WII, 2016) is in place.

6 MAJOR CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES AND WAY FORWARD

Invoking a flagship-centered conservation approach has been one of India's main biodiversity conservation strategies (National Wildlife Action Plan 2017–2031, MoEFCC, Government of India, 2017), underscoring its commitment to protecting its rich natural heritage. Elephants, recognized not only as umbrella and keystone species in biodiversity conservation due to their extensive home range needs and ecological roles in the tropical forest ecosystem (Fernando & Leimgruber, 2011; Sekar & Sukumar, 2013), also garner favorable public opinion towards conservation (Vasudev et al., 2020). Reinforcing its commitment to conservation, India has accorded the elephant the status of national heritage animal (Pandey, 2022). Although the country is consolidating its efforts in elephant conservation, several key challenges require special focus.

7 WAY FORWARD

Overall, the major enablers of elephant conservation in India include the cultural significance of the species that generates strong public support for elephant conservation, the relatively high tolerance of local communities towards wildlife in general, strong legislation, and the institutional framework and capacity to implement conservation priorities. Remarkably, Indian elephant populations have been holding steady and even growing in some landscapes. This is a significant achievement when viewed against the backdrop of global elephant conservation standards, especially in the face of major threats like ivory poaching that have been decimating African elephant populations (Wittemyer et al., 2013). The stability of elephant numbers in India, despite the country's rapid population growth and economic development over the past three decades, is a testament to the effectiveness of its conservation strategies.

Elephant habitats in India cover about 5% of the country's land area. Thus, even in the largest elephant landscape complexes, interactions with people are inevitable. Therefore, human–elephant coexistence is the only possible model for elephant conservation in India, and likely across Asia as a whole. Embracing the realities of elephant conservation, it is evident that conflict will continue to occur in interface areas. However, although complete resolution of these conflicts might not be feasible, intelligent and strategic management is essential to maintain them at socially tolerable levels without unduly compromising on conservation priorities.

Although negative human–elephant interactions are a widespread issue across the four regional elephant populations in India, in the east-central region, the problem is particularly acute. Addressing it has been complex and challenging, especially in light of elephant dispersal into new areas, spreading the zone of conflict. In an effort to maintain and foster local tolerance in these areas, Project Elephant has contemplated the idea of increasing the ex gratia monetary payments to local communities, particularly in the event of human deaths. For crop and property losses, ex gratia is already being paid, and many states have introduced online portals to reduce processing time. For example, Odisha and Karnataka have robust online portals and mobile-based applications such as ANUKAMPA (in Odisha) and e-Parihara (in Karnataka) that have increased the overall transparency in the ex gratia payment process. Although a seemingly attractive opportunity, the nuances of implementing contributory insurance schemes involving local communities warrant careful and objective assessment. In addition to timely monetary benefits, an increasing focus is being placed on improving the response time to negative human–elephant interactions. There is also an increased recognition that involving local communities as primary stakeholders in conservation and timely conflict resolution is crucial. In many Indian states, primary conflict response teams from the Forest Department often include village volunteers who aid in monitoring elephants in human-use areas, enabling them to disseminate early warning messages throughout the communities.

Life history traits and the corresponding ecological requirements of elephants necessitate the preservation of large and contiguous tracts of natural tropical forests and associated ecosystems for their conservation (Blake & Hedges, 2004; Sukumar, 2003). Based on this maxim, prioritizing the maintenance of resilient landscapes becomes crucial for elephant conservation. A key initiative towards this goal is enhancing the management of ERs. Project Elephant has embarked on the current Management Effectiveness Evaluation of ERs, aiming to identify reserve-specific management gaps. Nevertheless, given the high level of heterogeneity of land use in ERs, coming up with a specific management framework remains a challenge. To address this issue, Project Elephant has been coordinating with elephant range states to devise an Elephant Conservation Plan (ECP). The ECP will include landscape-level management prescriptions applicable to all types of land within ERs, and will be coordinated by the field director of each ER. Currently, the ECP is being prepared for a few ERs on a pilot basis to assess its suitability and adequacy under field conditions. As the interests of elephant conservation can often clash with those of other government agencies like road transport, railways, mining, electricity, and irrigation, there is an emphasis on proactive interministerial engagement. Such collaboration is essential to ensure that economic development projects can be harmonized with India's biodiversity conservation goals.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Ramesh K. Pandey: Conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, project administration, resources, supervision, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. Satya P. Yadav: Conceptualization, investigation, project administration, resources, supervision, writing—review and editing. K. Muthamizh Selvan: Formal analysis, project administration, resources, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. Lakshminarayanan Natarajan: Formal analysis, methodology, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. Parag Nigam: Conceptualization, investigation, methodology, supervision, writing—review and editing.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflict of interest.