Conservation, compensation: Tackling Himachal monkey menace

Why in the News

A 63 year old woman in Shimla has died of injuries, including spinal damage, sustained when a pack of rhesus macaques attacked her on the roof of her house. The death has returned attention to the legal position of the species. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 had listed the rhesus macaque as a protected species under Part I of Schedule II. The Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2022 removed it from that listing. The contest now is that responsibility has passed from State forest departments to urban local bodies without the funds, the trained staff or the compensation cover moving with it.

What changed for the rhesus macaque after the 2022 amendment?

1. Loss of protected status: The 2022 amendment removed the rhesus macaque from Part I of Schedule II of the parent Act, ending its treatment as a protected species.
2. Transfer of responsibility: The Chief Wildlife Warden of Himachal Pradesh has stated that State forest departments are no longer responsible for the monkey menace.
3. Reclassification in practice: A monkey is now treated like a stray animal, which places it within the purview of civic bodies rather than of the wildlife administration.
4. Central funding stopped: State forest departments earlier received funds from the Centre to control the monkey menace, and that flow ended once the species ceased to be protected.

Why are urban local bodies not equipped to take this on?

1. Absence of funds: A senior Indian Forest Service officer has identified the lack of funds as the first reason urban local bodies such as the Shimla Municipal Corporation are not fully competent to handle the task independently.
2. No trained manpower: The second stated reason is the absence of expertise and trained manpower to capture monkeys and to sterilise the captured animals.
3. Capacity is still being built: The Shimla Municipal Commissioner has stated that the corporation is in the process of training its manpower on how to capture monkeys, and takes the assistance of the forest department when a situation arises.
4. Assistance is now priced: The forest department continues to intervene largely in and around forest areas and charges urban local bodies for capture and sterilisation, at a cost of Rs 700 per monkey sterilised.

What do the population and incidence numbers show?

1. A falling population: Official numbers show Himachal Pradesh’s estimated rhesus macaque population fell from 3,17,512 in 2004 to 2,26,086 in 2013, and then to 1,36,443 in 2019 to 2020.
2. Sterilisation as the stated cause: The State forest department attributes much of that decline to sustained sterilisation, having sterilised 1,86,448 monkeys between 2006 and March 2024.
3. Conflict has not fallen with numbers: Shimla Municipal Corporation officials record 50 to 55 cases of monkey attack every month in the city.

Why has compensation become the sharper grievance?

1. Existing entitlements: Under the Himachal Pradesh wildlife compensation policy cited by officials, severe monkey attack injuries attract Rs 75,000, permanent disability Rs 1 lakh and death Rs 4 lakh.
2. Delisting closes the door: Since the rhesus macaque is no longer covered by the Act, officials have indicated that the deceased woman’s family is unlikely to qualify under this framework.
3. The demand on the ground: A Shimla based non governmental organisation has protested outside the Municipal Commissioner’s office demanding compensation of Rs 5 lakh for the deceased woman.
4. A parallel demand on behaviour: The same protest demanded stricter action against those found feeding monkeys in Shimla.

Why is the vermin versus protected species question still unsettled?

1. Opinion is divided: A wildlife expert has recorded that opinion remains split on whether monkeys should be treated as vermin or as a protected animal, despite rapid population growth.
2. Human behaviour drives the conflict: Public feeding of wild animals, including monkeys, forces animals out of the forest in search of easy food, which locates the cause of conflict outside the species itself.
3. Delisting answers only the legal question: Removing protection settles who is liable and does not settle whether culling, sterilisation or behaviour control is the correct instrument.

Challenges to managing human macaque conflict after delisting

1. Mismatch between mandate and capacity: Responsibility now sits with municipal bodies that have neither wildlife budgets nor trained handlers, while the expertise stays in a department that is no longer accountable for the outcome. Eg. Shimla Municipal Corporation must pay the forest department Rs 700 an animal for a service it cannot perform itself.
   The Fix: Fund a standing joint capture and sterilisation cell staffed by the forest department and paid for from the municipal budget, so the mandate and the skill sit in one unit.
2. Compensation vanishes with protected status: A State compensation policy keyed to species listed under the Act leaves victims of a delisted species with no claim, even where the injury is identical. Eg. The Shimla family faces a death under a schedule that no longer covers the animal responsible.
   The Fix: Rewrite the State compensation policy to key entitlement to the injury and the location rather than to the schedule the animal sits in.
3. Sterilisation without an exit point: A programme that runs for two decades without a stated target population becomes a permanent budget line rather than a solution. Eg. 1,86,448 monkeys were sterilised between 2006 and March 2024 while attack incidence in Shimla stayed at 50 to 55 cases a month.
   The Fix: Set a district level target population with published annual monitoring, so the programme is measured against conflict incidence rather than against animals processed.
4. Food subsidy from human waste: Open garbage and religious and recreational feeding supply a reliable calorie source that sustains urban troop numbers regardless of sterilisation. Eg. Shimla’s hill slope waste collection points and temple precincts draw troops into residential areas.
   The Fix: Enforce monkey proof waste containment along the affected wards and prosecute feeding under municipal bye laws with a stated penalty.
5. Vermin declarations are politically fraught and short lived: Section 62 of the parent Act allows the Centre to declare a species vermin for a limited period in a specified area, and such notifications draw litigation and lapse without resolving the problem. Eg. Himachal Pradesh’s earlier vermin notification for rhesus macaques was repeatedly renewed and then allowed to lapse.
   The Fix: Replace episodic vermin notifications with a standing conflict management plan that fixes responsibility, funding and compensation irrespective of the species’ schedule.

Conclusion

The 2022 delisting shifted the rhesus macaque from a conservation problem to a municipal nuisance without shifting the money, the staff or the compensation cover to match. The result is a hill town recording 50 to 55 attacks a month with no department fully answerable for either prevention or redress. The status question that remains open is whether responsibility is returned to the forest department with funding, or left with civic bodies and financed properly. The next marker is whether Himachal Pradesh amends its wildlife compensation policy to cover injuries caused by species the Act no longer lists.

Back2Basics: Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972

1. Purpose: It is the central law providing for the protection of wild animals and plants and for the establishment of protected areas such as national parks and wildlife sanctuaries.
2. Schedule structure after 2022: The 2022 amendment reduced the schedules, with Schedule I covering species receiving the highest protection, Schedule II covering species with lesser protection, Schedule III covering plants and Schedule IV listing species regulated under CITES.
3. Vermin provision: Section 62 allows the Centre to declare a wild animal other than one in Schedule I to be vermin for a specified area and period, which removes protection for that duration.
4. Administration: Each State has a Chief Wildlife Warden who exercises the Act’s powers over hunting permissions, captivity and the management of protected areas.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2024] Consider the following statements: Statement-I: The Indian Flying Fox is placed under the “vermin” category in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Statement-II: The Indian Flying Fox feeds on the blood of other animals. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements? (a) Both statement I and Statement II are correct and statement II explains statement I (b) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I (c) Staement- I is correct , but Statement II is incorrect* (d) Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct”