- Private landowners are increasingly engaging in rewilding, but legal ambiguity, particularly around “deemed forest” classification and state interventions, creates hesitation.
- Conservationists note that while private rewilding benefits biodiversity, India lacks clear laws, incentives or protections for landholders, leaving them vulnerable to scrutiny under various laws.
- Recent amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Act and alternative legal pathways may offer more security, but with limitations.
Bopanna Pattada has left two acres of land amidst his 60-acre coffee plantation in the Kodagu district of Karnataka to grow wild for small mammals and birds to feed, rest, nest and colonise. A four-acre paddy field abutting the plantation in Ammathi village in Virajpet taluk has also been left fallow, attracting an equal number of birds and animals, including elephants. “In the rewilded area, animals such as civet cats, mouse deer and small-clawed otters have been spotted. The paddy field, being on the boundary of the estate, sees more elephant activity,” Bopanna informs Mongabay-India.
Even when reports of negative interactions with elephants and other wild animals claim considerable news space in Kodagu, Bopanna sees no threat in allowing elephants into his plantation. “Elephants have always used this plantation, and my family has chosen to not disturb them. So far, there have been no human casualties. Earlier, only a single herd visited the land, but now there are three herds, including one with 14 members.” According to him, the elephants are familiar with the area but are often chased from one place to another. “It is then that most damage to the plantation occurs.” He envisions his estate remaining a safe haven for all animals that visit it.
India is witnessing an uptick in rewilding by private landowners who see biodiversity gains in allowing patches of wilderness to flourish within their landholdings. This trend is in direct concurrence with the United Nations’ call for ecosystem restoration through the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration launched in 2021, which urges countries to prevent, halt and reverse ecosystem degradation across continents and oceans. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2022 report, ecosystem restoration is one of several compelling ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
Experts believe that private rewilding could play a significant role in strengthening India’s biodiversity outcomes. Its impact on climate goals, however, may be limited. “In terms of national priorities, private rewilding aligns more closely with biodiversity goals than with climate goals,” says wildlife scientist T.R. Shankar Raman, who focuses on the ecology and conservation of forests and wildlife. Climate change mitigation, he notes, primarily depends on reducing fossil fuel use, while restoration or rewilding, though beneficial, has limited impact at the scale needed. “For biodiversity, however, the contribution can be huge. If landowners — whether plantations, institutions or private individuals — allowed even small portions of their land to regenerate, India would have hundreds of new habitats supplementing its 600-odd wildlife sanctuaries and national parks.”
Private players to meet biodiversity goals
Pune-based rewilding organisation OIKOS has worked on more than 70 rewilding projects in the Western Ghats over the last 23 years. Manasi Karandikar from OIKOS explains that they work with private landowners, with many projects integrated into vegetation management. “Projects purely for restoration are rare. Often, 30-50% of the land is kept for original ecosystem components and biodiversity. Other areas, even if managed, are turned into eco-gardens with an emphasis on native vegetation,” she says.
Restoration and rewilding are often used interchangeably; ecological restoration, however, is about strengthening the existing resources, according to Karandikar. Shankar Raman adds that rewilding can refer both to the reintroduction of species and to simply allowing land to recover to its natural state. “Restoration is usually more plant-centric, while rewilding is more animal-centric. But both processes ultimately aim at the recovery of species and ecosystems,” he explains.
He points out that, in India, lions are officially found and protected only in Gir. Yet today, they occupy over 30,000 square kilometres, having colonised new areas on their own. This expansion, though not a deliberate reintroduction, is also a form of rewilding. Similar natural recoveries are occurring in parts of North America and Europe, where wolves, bears and other historically exterminated species are returning. Alongside this, there are deliberate reintroductions — such as beavers, otters, lynx, and in some cases wolves and bears — where animals are actively brought back to areas from which they had disappeared. Both natural recolonisation and deliberate reintroduction are a part of rewilding.
In ecological restoration, also termed assisted natural regeneration, certain interventions are added to expedite tree growth, since organic growth is time-consuming, says Karandikar. “These include soil mulching, biomass addition and arresting soil erosion. Some planting is also done, usually adding to species already present, with a focus on diversity. Every region comes with its own challenges and limitations, and a canopy develops at different times depending on the landscape,” she explains.
She hesitates to call the replanted areas forests, as a fully grown forest requires old-growth and diverse-growth trees. “We cannot create a natural forest in a human lifetime. A mature forest has features such as canopy layers, understory vegetation and multiple species in a self-sustaining system — conditions nearly impossible to recreate just by planting,” she says. What OIKOS aims to create is a combination of plantation, restoration and diverse woodland. Over time, such woodlands can develop the potential to become forests.
Efforts mired in legal ambiguity
Despite the ecological benefits, private landowners remain hesitant to pursue rewilding due to the legal ambiguity surrounding it. Bopanna, for instance, is apprehensive that his rewilded patch could be labelled a “deemed forest” under the Forest (Conservation) Act, which may restrict his access to his own land.
The Supreme Court’s 1996 judgment in the T.N. Godavarman case states that any land that looks like a forest or has the ecological characteristics of a forest must be treated as one for the purposes of protection under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, even if it is not officially notified. This interpretation also extends to forest-like patches owned by private individuals.
Conservationist Ahmed Chamanwala, who has set up an ecotourism venture, Fringe Ford, on his 600-acre property in Wayanad, Kerala, has earmarked most of the land for rewilding. Surrounded by tiger reserves, Fringe Ford is used as a corridor by many animals that provide them safety and security from poachers and development, among other things.
Yet he, too, is worried. “In Kerala, where land is ecologically fragile, even sincere rewilding efforts risk being notified as vested forest, without compensation,” he says. In Kerala, where concerns around ownership of rewilded land run high, some landowners fear that once plantations or private patches are abandoned and begin regenerating, the forest or revenue department may intervene. One law that could enable this is the Rural Ceiling Limits Act, a revenue law that allows the acquisition of land if ceiling limits are exceeded.
Conservationists and private landholders believe this is where government support and clear policy could help — by assuring landowners that regeneration will not lead to loss of tenure, and by actively encouraging such efforts.
As it stands, the participation of private landowners in conservation is barely recognised in the country. “There is no clear law or central policy incentivising it. At present, people like us operate in a legal grey zone,” says Chamanwala. “Legally, owners can decide how to use their land. But if there were clarity through a central law, then individuals with conservation mindsets could voluntarily contribute land without fear of losing tenure.”
“There are no specific guidelines or legal recognition for rewilding in the country. Most people fall back on international guidance, particularly that of the IUCN,” Shankar Raman explains. Indian law, however, is largely regulatory and protectionist. “There are no laws that prohibit leaving land for rewilding, which is often practised in India. But once wildlife recolonises private land, the Wildlife Protection Act applies. For instance, if a leopard dies on private property, the forest department is obligated to investigate, and the landowner may face legal scrutiny even if not responsible. This can act as a disincentive.”
New amendment could protect rewilding
Pune-based environmental lawyer Gouri Joshi allays the fears of private landholders by pointing to the 2023 amendment to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. “Earlier, ambiguity arose due to differing interpretations of what constituted a ‘forest’,” she says. “The 1996 judgment (T.N. Godavarman case) sought to address this confusion by defining what constituted a forest and by directing that if India intended to increase its forest cover, the government must identify potential areas and conduct surveys to bring them under forest classification. The Court also urged all states to take cognisance of this and propose measures to expand forest areas.”
Until 1980, state governments held the authority to make the decisions to reserve or de-reserve forests. Now, while, the power to reserve forests under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, remains with the state government, the power to approve de-reservation has been vested with the Centre. In 2023, the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam or the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act was passed to further strengthen this framework.
Joshi highlights that there are also other, legally sound ways to secure a rewilded land patch. Under the Biological Diversity Act, there are provisions to designate Biodiversity Heritage Sites. To declare such a site, however, one must establish its ecological and heritage value through a systematic process of documentation and restoration. The site should not appear as a neglected landscape but one that is being actively revived. Additionally, a forested or ecologically significant area can be designated as an Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measure (OECM), provided it follows due diligence. The main limitation is that such recognition may affect the land’s future saleability. However, it allows the owner to retain possession while ensuring long-term protection and ecological value.
That said, the very first ecological principle that should guide any rewilding project, whether private or otherwise, is to not destroy an intact ecosystem in the belief that it can later be restored or revived, either in the same place or elsewhere. “Very often, once lost, certain components of an ecosystem are extremely difficult to bring back,” Shankar Raman notes.
Read more: In search of degraded forests for restoration [Commentary]
Banner image: An aerial view of visitors at a rewilded area in Fringe Ford. Image courtesy of Fringe Ford.
Credits
