Experts flag ecological, privacy concerns over drone deployment for wildlife monitoring

While drones have emerged as an effective tool for monitoring wildlife and mitigating human-wildlife conflicts, experts warn that the increased use of drones could inadvertently endanger wildlife and invade people’s privacy.

Although unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, in some cases equipped with payloads such as speakers, are used in several states in India to track wild animals and return those who encroach on human settlements to forests, the Kerala Forest Department currently uses them only for “monitoring purposes”.

disturbance to wildlife

Experts and scientists state that the deployment of unmanned aerial vehicles in civilian areas may violate people’s privacy, while in forests it may cause disturbance to wildlife, especially bees, wasps and birds. Therefore, the use of conservation surveillance technologies (CSTs), including drones, camera traps, and thermal imaging, for conservation and wildlife surveillance requires a second thought.

“Relatively few studies have examined how drones affect wildlife behavior. Existing research shows that high-pitched drone noise, which mimics the sound of bees and hornets, causes disturbance and disrupts the orderly movements of these insects. There are examples of them attacking drones,” says Priyadarsanan Dharma Rajan, conservation researcher and practitioner and associate researcher at ATREE, Bengaluru.

Must comply with the norms

Drones have become an essential tool for studying wildlife, said a scientist from the Kerala Forest Research Institute (KFRI), who asked not to be named as he is not authorized to talk about government policy. Flying drones too low, too fast or too loudly can stress the animals and affect their behaviour. “Drone operators must always follow safe flight rules. This includes keeping the drone at a safe altitude, flying slowly at a side angle rather than flying directly overhead, keeping flights short, and staying away from animals when nesting or breeding,” the scientist adds.

While experts agree that CSTs have significantly improved wildlife monitoring and anti-poaching efforts, they warn that their rapid expansion also has social, ethical and political consequences that are not adequately addressed. One of the key concerns is privacy, as drones and hidden camera traps can capture images and videos of people without their consent, especially in and around forested areas. Authorities warn that such records could be misused if accessed by unauthorized individuals.

“Investigative studies have revealed widespread misuse of CSTs and serious human rights violations in Kaziranga National Park and Corbett Tiger Reserve. Recent decisions by the Kerala government to expand the deployment of drones and camera traps therefore require urgent and serious revision. Kerala has an opportunity to set a model for forest conservation by introducing a comprehensive Code of Practice for the use of CSTs,” adds Mr. Rajan.

Meanwhile, Kerala P. Pugazhendi, chief conservator of forests (Wildlife) and principal wildlife warden, says the State is not using drones to take animals back to forests. “Broadly speaking, drones can serve two purposes in wildlife management. One is surveillance and monitoring, and the other is to actively drive wild animals back into forests. For the latter, drones can be fitted with payloads such as speakers that emit sound to draw animals away from human settlements. This practice is followed in many countries and some Indian States as well. However, currently in Kerala drones are used only for monitoring purposes and only in areas reporting serious human-wildlife conflict,” he says. Pugazhendi..