At the IUCN World Conservation Congress in Abu Dhabi, Dr. Anish Andheria, President of the Wildlife Conservation Trust, spoke about what it means to “restore balance with nature” in a country where people and wildlife live side by side. For him, conservation is not separate from human life, it’s part of it.
He believes India’s culture already carries a deep respect for nature. From worshipping rivers to revering animals like tigers, elephants, and snakes, Indians see nature as family, not property. That cultural link, he says, gives India a strong foundation for global leadership in conservation.
In this conversation with the Ground Report, Andheria who has worked for years with tigers and other Indian species warns that culture alone is not enough. Climate change, habitat loss, and poor resource management are putting immense pressure on both people and wildlife. To protect both, he argues for organic, community-driven solutions that merge modern science with indigenous knowledge.
Q: What does that idea mean to you in a country like India, where people and wild animals share the same space every day?
A: We can’t solve conservation issues if we see people as separate from nature. Humans are just one of millions of species on this planet. Despite our power, we are still vulnerable to nature’s forces. Climate change, created mostly by humans, has shown that nature is supreme. What conservationists have been saying for decades is now being felt by everyone.
Technology is useful, but it’s not a silver bullet. Real solutions must come from organic, community-driven programs that address the needs and aspirations of people who live closest to nature. Unless we include them, we cannot solve climate, economic, or ecological problems.
India has a cultural advantage. Our traditions already treat nature as part of life. We worship trees, rivers, and animals like the tiger, elephant, monkey, and snake. Whether in Maharashtra, Mizoram, Ladakh, or Srinagar, this connection runs deep. That’s why India can play a leadership role globally. If we combine our culture with science and protect at least 30 percent of our land, we can show the world that development and nature can coexist.
Q: India is known for saving its tigers. How can we make sure other animals and smaller species also get the same care and attention?
A: The tiger is an umbrella species. When you protect tigers, you protect the entire ecosystem around them. Project Tiger, launched in 1973, along with the Wildlife Protection Act (1972) and the Forest Conservation Act (1980), brought many species back from the brink. When tiger numbers rise, elephants, deer, birds, butterflies, frogs, and trees all benefit. In a reserve like Tadoba, which covers around 1,700 square kilometers, there may be only 100 tigers, but millions of other living things, trees, insects, reptiles, birds, exist there. Protecting the tiger protects all of them.
The tiger is also deeply linked to water security. Studies show over 600 rivers in India originate from or are fed by tiger-bearing forests. From just 58 tiger reserves, 300 rivers emerge. Millions of people depend on this water. So tiger conservation is really water conservation. In Hindi, the tiger is called “Pattedaar pani ka devta”, the “striped water water”. Saving the tiger means saving forests and rivers.
Q: As climate changes, forests and rivers are changing too. Have you seen animals behave differently or move to new places because of this? What worries you most about it?
A: Climate change is causing erratic rainfall, floods, droughts, and forest fires. These changes are also affecting how species breed, migrate, and feed. Every species is synchronized with the climate. For example, butterflies lay eggs when rains bring new leaves, so their caterpillars have food. Birds breed then because caterpillars feed their chicks. When rainfall becomes unpredictable, this entire chain breaks.
Butterflies lay eggs too early or too late, rains don’t come on time, and millions of embryos die. That means fewer caterpillars, fewer birds, and fewer predators. Populations collapse slowly, not visibly because old animals remain in the population, but no new ones are recruited. We’re already seeing 60 percent declines across all vertebrate populations over the last 40 years. Amphibian, reptile, bird, and mammal populations are all shrinking. Climate change is worsening this decline.
Rising temperatures are also pushing mosquitoes and other pathogens into new regions like the mountains. People and wildlife there have no immunity, leading to more disease. Plants face fungal and bacterial outbreaks too. Insects are the foundation of ecosystems. When they suffer, everything else suffers. This invisible disruption is one of the biggest threats we face.
Q: Many people in India still live close to forests and depend on them. How can conservation protect wildlife without making life harder for these communities?
A: Conservation does not mean fencing people out. It means using resources sustainably. You can’t protect wildlife without thinking about people. Tourism is one of the best tools for this. It generates income without destroying natural ecosystems. A living tiger brings long-term benefits to local communities, jobs, tourism, and pride. A poached tiger on the other hand only provides an isolated income opportunity and fear of punishment.
Around 65 percent of Indians depend on farming directly. If we make farming more organic, regenerative and water-efficient, we’ll protect people, ecosystems and wild species equally.
Q: Scientists collect a lot of data about wildlife in India. How can this information reach policymakers and guide real action?
A: Humanity already has enough knowledge to save the planet. The problem is that research stays in labs and reports instead of guiding decisions. We must combine modern science with indigenous wisdom. People living close to nature have knowledge built over centuries. When we integrate that with scientific data, policies become practical and fair. Currently, only a few government institutions influence policy. Many independent organizations produce excellent research that remains ignored. We need to break that barrier and make science accessible to decision-makers.
We also need patience. What we’ve damaged in 200 years cannot be fixed in two. It will take decades. But with persistence and cooperation between government, scientists, and communities, we can rebuild ecosystems.
Q: At this Congress, countries are talking about new global goals for nature. What lessons from India’s conservation work could help other countries facing similar problems?
A: India proves that population and poverty do not automatically lead to environmental destruction. We have more than 70 percent of the world’s wild tigers, 70 percent of all Asian elephants, 85 percent of one-horned rhinos, and 100 percent of Asiatic lions. We also have 16 wild cat species, more than any other country.
Despite being densely populated, India still holds immense biodiversity: over 1,300 species of birds, 1,500 species of butterflies, 25,000 flowering plants, and hundreds of reptiles. This is possible because our culture treats nature as sacred. We worship rivers, trees, and mountains. We see animals as life-giving, not commodities. India’s message to the world is resilience, tolerance, and coexistence. Combine traditional respect for nature with modern science. That is how balance is restored. We also need to improve how we document ecosystems and share credit. Too many groups work in silos. NGOs and research organizations must collaborate, not compete. Conservation is too big for one institution or one country alone.
Q: We now see leopards in Mumbai, elephants in tea gardens, even wild pig near towns. What do these stories tell us about how animals are adapting to human spaces?
A: Animals are adapting because they have no choice. Their natural habitats are shrinking, so they’re learning to live in human spaces. Leopards in Mumbai, elephants in tea gardens, or wild pig in cities show both adaptability and crisis. Wildlife is resilient, but we shouldn’t take pride in these encounters. They signal habitat loss and fragmentation. We must secure larger, connected wild areas so animals don’t have to depend on human settlements for survival.
Q: You’ve worked with many young conservationists. What kind of thinking or skills do you want the next generation to have to protect nature better than we did?
A: Conservation is not just for biologists. The next generation must think across disciplines. Economists, lawyers, sociologists, engineers, all have roles to play. At the Wildlife Conservation Trust, we have a mixed team: conservation biologists, landscape ecologists, social psychologists, lawyers, economists, and veterinarians. Each sees a different part of the problem, and together they see the whole picture.
Ecology and economy are two sides of the same coin. A strong economy depends on a healthy environment. Young conservationists must learn to collaborate, question, and work patiently. Nature heals slowly. They should also bring humility and curiosity, listening to communities, learning from indigenous wisdom, and merging it with modern science. That mindset will define the next era of conservation.
Q: How challenging is it to come up with the Red List in five years for 11,000 species, and what kind of support will be needed?
A: Yes, coming up with the Red List in five years and that too for 11,000 species is by no means easy, and one will have to rely on multiple agencies. So these 300 people that have been trained will definitely not be enough. They will have to rely on the services of individuals who have been working on certain taxa or species for a long time. There will have to be organizations like the Zoo Outreach, which has been helping the IUCN to build its Red Data List with information from India for over two decades. A lot of scientifically oriented NGOs and individuals across the length and breadth of the country have a lot of information. They need to be tapped.
The training program will have to continue. Capacity building will have to be done at multiple levels. There will have to be state coordinators, coordinators at the district level, and leadership from within villages. Because if you want to utilize indigenous knowledge, then definitely one will have to go till the last mile, and it’s by no means easy. So yes, while the document talks about five years, I think it’ll take much more, and it’ll need support from a lot of individuals and organizations. As mentioned earlier, the 300 trained people are not enough, maybe one will require 10 times more to maintain quality in the data, and to be more inclusive, one will have to consult people from different constituencies – villagers, scientists, data scientists, and NGOs.
Support us to keep independent environmental journalism alive in India.
Keep Reading
Highway Halt Puts Kashmir’s Fruit Economy at Risk
MP brings back Bhavantar as farmers lose soybean harvests
Stay connected with Ground Report for underreported environmental stories.
Follow us onX, Instagram, and Facebook; share your thoughts at greport2018@gmail.com; subscribe to our weekly newsletter for deep dives from the margins; join our WhatsApp community for real-time updates; and catch our video reports on YouTube.
Your support amplifies voices too often overlooked, thank you for being part of the movement.
