Not meaning to undermine the role of agricultural, built-up and aquatic habitats, the common perception is that India's wildlife is found mainly in forests and more so in the areas notified under the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972. Wild animals, particularly the larger ones, have attracted the most attention of the the people and the government so far; as a result the numbers of many large animal species has increased dramatically over the years but they have also negatively impacted the lives and livelihoods of people living around the natural habitat of these animals. Many places have seen widespread protests by the locals - in Kerala against wild elephant raids, in Uttarakhand over human deaths caused by leopard and tiger and in eastern India by elephants, in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar plains for crop destruction by blue bulls, and in Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand for crop/ orchard destruction by monkeys, etc. Local forest and law & order keeping officials now constantly live at the brink of these protests in many areas. On the other hand, the number and occurrence of many wild animal species and innumerable plant species has been showing appreciable decline. Many reports, such as the Living Planet Report of World Wildlife Fund, Critically Endangered Species list (1996-2023) of IUCN, etc. bring this out as a universal phenomenon across the globe. Major lessons have been learnt on both the fronts (reducing human wild animal conflict, and conservation of a species), and new methods of conservation have been successfully applied by combining new scientific knowledge with indigenous knowledge and practices of the local communities. But such places remain islands of successes; major breakthrough is yet to be achieved for results at larger landscape or ecosystem levels or in a holistic manner. Chronic under-investment, both human and financial, coupled with people's apathy or even resistance in wildlife protection areas due to closure of the later for local people's use, has been cited as one of the main reasons. On the other hand, the problem of wildlife conservation in areas beyond forests and wildlife protected areas (e.g. in agricultural, aquatic and rapidly expanding built-up habitats) exacerbate on account of easy flow of investment in these areas which in most cases encourage investors to sidestep the underlying basics of ecological principles while using these habitats. Thus for example, food grain cultivation (rice, maize and wheat) continues to both extend and intensify in forest-fringe areas through enhanced support to farmers in the form of seeds, fertiliser, credit, irrigation, power, cash grants/ subsidies etc., despite the common knowledge that wild animals will come out of the forest to raid these crops and make local people more vulnerable. No degree of good forest vegetation can match the energy potential of cultivated food crops on village farms, and animal biology and behaviour could defy any physical barrier that might be created for keeping those wild animals away from villages and farms and within the forests. Proliferation of tourist resorts and infrastructure in forest-fringe areas has major impact on the residual habitat available for natural animal movement or migration, and thereby on the maintenance of sustainable gene pools. As one of the most welcome steps, the Central Government has promulgated the Green Credit Rules but it will take time to iron-out its modalities for actual benefits to start flowing while the voluntary nature of action under the Rules and the emerging stress in the global neo-liberal economic order would make the case of intended success of these Rules highly challenging.

This is not a place to discuss the challenges or the solutions in great detail. Suffice will be to suggest here that three simple steps of restructuring the existing mechanisms could transform the conservation-based development landscape of India. First, the 10% of funds horizontally devolved to States as per the XV Finance Commission principles in proportion to each State's dense forest cover, must be allocated to the forestry sector of that State to improve their forests. This is a significant money, but the dominant premise is that States need this money to address fiscal disability arising out of the fact that they can divert forest areas to non-forest development use only after incurring certain costs stipulated under the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 or the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972. Consequently, the dominant perception is to see forest as a threat to develop rather than as an opportunity and no State Government allocates proportionate finance commission funds to its forestry budget as such. If only States use the finance commission allocated funds as per their dense forest cover as seed capital to mobilise private financing to regenerate degraded/ denuded forest areas for the new development needs of the country (e.g. for production of wood-based materials, textile fibres like Tasar and bamboo, oil seeds like Karanja for bio-diesel, and raw materials for the growing needs of the modern society for nutraceutical , pharmaceutical and cosmeceuticals), we can at once address both the development as well as environmental challenges of India. Second, we need to monetise the ecosystem services from the protection areas and introduce a system of payment for these services which shall go to maintenance of these areas as such in collaboration with local communities. Water-stress is going to only increase, not the least because of the projected climate change in India. We must start valuing this and paying for it in a manner that maintains the socio-ecological equilibrium of the country. Already, a beginning has been made by the Government Accounting Standards Advisory Board of the CAG in introducing the Natural Resource Accounting methods. States and UTs have already started reporting on their mineral and energy accounts, and forest and water could be the next. Third, a new national policy should be evolved to develop our forest-fringe farms and other areas for non-food production in a sustainable manner. In this policy, food and horticulture crops in immediate forest-fringes should be replaced with the much-needed cash crops like oil seeds, essential oils, bio-diesel/ fertiliser tree crops (like Karanja which enhance local soil fertility) cotton and other fibres, farm forestry trees and other crops not liked by wild animals.

Potential of India's forest and wildlife areas to fulfill the ambition of new India is immense. To utilise this potential, and as a start along the above-noted three pathways, we would need an integrated policy, regulatory and market reforms process - one that will cover and integrate agriculture, forest, wildlife, fisheries and animal husbandry, energy, water and land-use sectors as a single ecological entity in a manner that could create new markets, financial services and jobs and fulfills the Net Zero goals as per LiFE principles enunciated by Hon. Prime Minister of India. There is no dearth of global private capital for investing in India's forest and wildlife sector; the sector needs to embark on ambitious reforms and lead the way not only in realising the ambitions of new India but also showing to the higher judiciary that these reforms are urgently needed to meet the preambulatory principles of our Constitution. Conceptualising this integration in designated Green Investment Development Zones could be the first step in this process.

Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change, Government of India NITI Aayog Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India Ministry of Jal Shakti, Department of Water Resources, RD & GR, Govt. of India Ministry of Rural Development MINISTRY OF TRIBAL AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA National Biodiversity Authority India Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy IIFM Bhopal Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE), Dehradun, India