Karnataka is examining a proposal to bring crop damage caused by wild animals under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY), a move that could change how the state manages one of the most persistent costs of human–wildlife conflict. The proposal seeks a trial from kharif 2026 in high-conflict areas, with individual farm-level assessment and insurance cover added to the compensation already paid by the Forest Department.
The issue sits at the intersection of agriculture, wildlife conservation, climate risk and public administration. Farmers already face losses from drought, floods, irregular rainfall, climate change and severe weather events. Repeated damage by elephants, wild boars and other wild animals adds another layer of uncertainty, but the existing compensation mechanism is described in the report as inadequate by farmers.
A proposal has been submitted to Karnataka’s Forest Department by wildlife conservationist Giridhar Kulkarni and his team. It asks the department to coordinate with the Agriculture Department, other relevant departments and insurance companies before submitting a formal proposal to the Union government. The Forest Department has confirmed that the proposal has been received and is being examined.
The proposed change is not simply an expansion of compensation. It would require the state to create a system for identifying where wildlife damage is concentrated, which crops are most exposed and which animals are responsible for the losses. These decisions would determine the geographical scope of the cover, the crops that qualify and the premium that would need to be paid.
The proposal refers to an additional insurance product called the Wild Animal Attack Add-on Cover. According to the report, the Centre approved revised guidelines in November 2025, and Karnataka has been asked to examine the possibility of implementing the cover on a pilot basis from kharif 2026. The proposal does not establish that the cover has already been approved for implementation in the state. It calls for a feasibility assessment and a suitable proposal to be submitted through the state government.
That distinction matters because PMFBY is built around defined insurance units, notified crops, premium structures and loss-assessment procedures. Wildlife damage is often more localised than the risks normally associated with drought, flood or widespread weather events. A single farmer, or a small group of farmers, may suffer severe damage while neighbouring fields remain unaffected. The proposal therefore recommends assessment at the level of individual holdings rather than relying only on wider area-based assessments.
This would address one of the central administrative problems in wildlife-related crop loss: the scale at which damage is recorded. If assessment is conducted across a broad unit, highly localised losses may not be reflected accurately. If each affected field is assessed separately, farmers may receive a more direct link between the damage suffered and the payment claimed. However, the supplied report does not specify the technology, inspection process, time limits or dispute-resolution mechanism that would support such assessments.
The proposed pilot would initially focus on suitable national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, tiger reserves and surrounding areas where human–wildlife conflict is high. It also recommends considering high-conflict areas outside protected zones if previous years’ crop-loss data support their inclusion. This is important for Karnataka’s landscape because wildlife-related damage is not confined to the legal boundaries of protected areas. The proposal’s suggested approach is to use historical data to identify both protected and non-protected conflict zones.
The design would therefore depend heavily on the quality and consistency of existing records. The Forest Department already provides compensation when wildlife damages crops, and the amount is determined according to notified crop values at the level of the relevant forest circle, according to the department response quoted in the report. The proposal seeks to add PMFBY insurance to this system rather than replace it.
That additionality is a significant condition. The proposal specifically states that insurance payments under PMFBY should be over and above the compensation currently provided by the Forest Department. Existing compensation should neither be withdrawn nor reduced because a farmer receives insurance cover. In practical terms, this would create a two-part support system: departmental compensation for wildlife damage and an additional insurance mechanism for eligible losses.
The arrangement would also require the state to decide how the insurance premium is financed. The proposal asks the government to obtain suitable premium rates from insurance companies and assess whether the system is financially and administratively viable. It suggests examining funds available through tiger conservation foundations, human–wildlife conflict mitigation programmes, wildlife damage mitigation schemes and other eligible sources, subject to applicable rules.
It also raises the possibility of agreements with voluntary organisations and corporate entities to use corporate social responsibility funds where necessary. The report does not identify specific organisations, funding commitments or premium amounts. These remain matters for a future feasibility exercise rather than established components of a functioning scheme.
The institutional structure is consequently as important as the insurance product itself. The Forest Department holds the primary administrative knowledge of wildlife movement and conflict locations. The Agriculture Department has information on crops and farming systems. Insurance companies would assess risk and price the cover, while the state government would need to coordinate the final proposal and implementation framework. The Union government’s role would be relevant because the proposed add-on is linked to PMFBY guidelines.
This division of responsibility creates both an opportunity and a challenge. The proposal recognises that wildlife-related crop damage cannot be managed by the Forest Department alone. It requires coordination across departments that maintain different records, use different administrative units and operate under different schemes. The success of any pilot would depend on whether these systems can share information quickly enough for a farmer’s field-level loss to be verified and paid.
The proposed model also reflects a broader shift in how agricultural risk is being understood. Farmers in conflict-prone areas are not facing a single hazard. Weather-related losses and wildlife-related losses can occur in the same farming season, increasing the financial pressure on households. The report places wildlife damage alongside drought, floods, unseasonal rainfall, climate change and extreme weather, presenting it as an additional economic burden rather than an isolated conservation issue.
The numbers needed to establish the scale of the problem are not provided in the supplied report. It does not state the number of affected farmers, the annual value of wildlife-related crop losses, the districts likely to be included or the number of claims previously settled by the Forest Department. It also does not provide an estimate of the premium or the likely fiscal burden on the state. Those gaps will need to be addressed before the proposal can be evaluated beyond its broad administrative logic.
The proposal’s emphasis on historical data is therefore central. Previous records would be used to identify wildlife species, crops and areas with repeated damage. That approach could make the pilot more targeted, but it also raises questions about data coverage. Areas with weak reporting systems may appear to have lower conflict even when farmers experience regular losses. The supplied material does not establish whether the state has a common database across the Forest and Agriculture departments or how incomplete claims records would be handled.
The proposed field-level assessment could also affect the speed and cost of claims. Localised damage requires inspections that are more granular than assessments based on a larger administrative unit. The proposal identifies this as a way to improve benefits for farmers, but the report does not state who would conduct the inspections, how quickly they would be completed or how fraudulent and duplicate claims would be prevented. These operational details will be necessary for determining whether the cover is viable.
The Forest Department’s response indicates that the proposal has been sent to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife). The department has been requested to coordinate with the Agriculture Department and other relevant agencies, examine feasibility and submit an appropriate proposal to the state government. This is the immediate institutional milestone identified in the report.
The larger policy question is whether compensation and insurance can be combined without creating confusion for farmers. A farmer dealing with wildlife damage would need to know where to report the loss, which documents are required, whether the same inspection can support both compensation and insurance and how disagreements over crop value or cause of damage would be resolved. The proposal’s insistence that insurance remain additional to existing compensation addresses one concern, but it does not yet provide the operating rules.
Karnataka’s proposed pilot is therefore best understood as an attempt to close a gap in the state’s risk-management system. Wildlife conservation policy protects habitats and species, while agricultural policy protects farm production. In conflict zones, the costs of maintaining that ecological balance are often experienced directly by farmers. Bringing those losses into a structured insurance framework could give the state another instrument, but only if the assessment, financing and departmental coordination systems are clearly defined.
What is established at this stage is that a proposal has been submitted, the Forest Department is examining it, and a kharif 2026 pilot is being considered for selected high-conflict areas. What remains unresolved are the eligible locations and crops, premium rates, funding sources, claim procedures and the relationship between insurance payments and existing compensation. Those details will determine whether the proposed PMFBY wildlife cover becomes a workable form of protection or remains a policy concept awaiting implementation.
