Gujarat's forest department partners with railways to protect wildlife
Stretching across the western edge of India, Gujarat is home to some of the subcontinent's most iconic wildlife, from the Asiatic lion in Gir to the Indian gazelle in the Banni grasslands. As rail networks expand to connect ports, industrial hubs and rural communities, the risk of train-wildlife collisions has grown alongside the tracks. The state's forest department has responded with a quietly ambitious programme that brings ecologists, engineers and railway officials to the same table, mapping animal movement corridors and redesigning vulnerable stretches of line.
For Australians who watch wombats, koalas and eastern grey kangaroos dodge freight trains through the Hunter Valley or along the Pilbara iron ore lines, the parallels are striking. Queensland Rail's wildlife underpasses near Rockhampton and wombat crossing projects in New South Wales show the challenge is global. Gujarat's blend of desert, grassland and wetland means the species mix is different, and so are the solutions.
Mapping the problem before the fence goes up
Every collaboration between ecologists and railway engineers begins with data. Forest officers across Gujarat's 25 districts submit seasonal reports of carcass sightings along railway corridors, overlaid with kilometre markers and cross-referenced with camera-trap grids and village-level intelligence about leopard and nilgai movements. A GIS-based dashboard now highlights which sections of the Bhuj–Gandhidham or Surendranagar–Bhavnagar corridor experience the highest wildlife strikes each year.
Field teams tag select species with GPS collars to track how animals approach the rail alignment. Asiatic lions occasionally cross the Veraval–Junagadh line during dispersal, while chinkaras and wolves move along the dry scrub flanking the Palanpur–Samakhiali route. The data feeds directly into design briefs for railway contractors building new bridges, cuttings and culverts. Anyone studying Gujarat's forest types across the state can see why a one-size-fits-all fence would fail; the animals, soils and rainfall all vary.
Comparing approaches across two countries
Both jurisdictions face the same underlying tension: linear infrastructure crossing functional habitat. How do the two systems actually compare on the ground? A side-by-side reading of the Gujarat Forest Department's annual reports, Indian Railways circulars and public material from the Australasian Railway Association suggests the following.
| Feature | Gujarat, India | Australia |
|---|---|---|
| Lead agency | Gujarat Forest Department with Indian Railways | State environment agencies with rail operators such as Queensland Rail and ARTC |
| Typical mitigation | Fencing, underpasses, speed limits, acoustic deterrents | Fauna crossings, glider poles, rope bridges, exclusion fencing |
| Mapping method | GIS overlay of carcass data, camera traps and collared animals | Koala and wombat GPS studies, aerial thermal imaging, citizen science apps |
| Response model | Joint forest-rail rapid response with veterinary teams | Wildlife hospital network (WIRES, Wildlife Victoria) with volunteer drivers |
| Funding source | Compensatory Afforestation Fund, state budget, railway CSR | State environment budgets, federal infrastructure grants, mining levies |
| Public engagement | Onboard announcements, station workshops, school calendars | Truckies for Wildlife, citizen science apps, Wildlife Victoria rescue lines |
A second difference lies in how each system funds mitigation. In Gujarat, railway corporate social responsibility budgets have been tapped to build crossing structures on stretches that the railway itself would not normally prioritise. In Australia, mitigation is more often funded through environmental offsets attached to mine expansions, port upgrades or road duplications, with transport departments sometimes waiting years for these flows to materialise. The Indian model spreads smaller sums across many sites; the Australian model can deliver larger single-project outlays.
The legal mandate and joint governance
The partnership is rooted in administrative orders issued over the past two decades. The Wildlife Protection Act of 1972, read alongside the Indian Railways Act, obliges both parties to consult whenever a proposed rail project falls within 10 kilometres of a protected area or known wildlife corridor. Gujarat has used this legal foundation to formalise monthly coordination meetings, joint site inspections and shared data portals.
High-level political backing has helped. The chief wildlife warden meets every quarter with the general manager of Western Railway, and similar touchpoints exist with senior officers of the Ahmedabad and Rajkot divisions. These meetings have unlocked budget lines that would otherwise have stayed locked inside separate departmental silos. For Australian readers familiar with how the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority negotiates with the Queensland ports sector, the dynamic will feel recognisable.
When disagreements arise, they tend to be technical rather than political. Forest officers press for more underpasses; railway engineers worry about waterlogging during the monsoon. Solutions emerge through compromise, with the forest department sometimes funding extra culverts from its own budget. This kind of pragmatic give-and-take has become the working culture of the partnership, and it is reshaping how both sides think about shared responsibility.
Engineering solutions built for hooves, paws and quills
Once a hotspot is confirmed, the engineering response is layered. The cheapest intervention is a chain-link or weld-mesh fence of between 1.5 and 2 metres, but Gujarat's forest department insists on designs that account for the species present. Fences near the Little Rann of Kutch include buried skirts to stop wild ass and chinkara from slipping underneath, while fencing in the Panchmahal ranges leaves deliberately wide gaps for honey badgers and porcupines. Where a fence would fragment a known lion corridor, no fence is built at all.
At the most collision-prone points, the department pushes for overpasses or underpasses. Causeways that double as wildlife culverts, raised earthen berms planted with native grasses, and dedicated canopy bridges for hanuman langurs now appear in detailed project reports. Speed restrictions through sensitive stretches, often reduced from 100 to 40 kilometres per hour between dusk and dawn, are backed by railway board circulars that the forest department helped draft. Acoustic deterrents that mimic predator calls or train horns are being trialled near the Wankaner–Rajkot corridor.
In Tasmania, the state government has spent more than A$13 million on fauna underpasses along the Midland Highway, while in Western Australia the Public Transport Authority retrofitted culverts with ledges for quendas and bandicoots. Gujarat's engineers routinely trade notes with counterparts at the Australasian Railway Association, comparing how concrete box culverts perform against modular steel underpasses in different soil conditions. Each country is teaching the other something new.
Working with train drivers and station masters
Infrastructure only does half the job; human behaviour does the rest. The forest department runs half-day workshops at major junction stations such as Ahmedabad, Ratlam border halt and Gandhidham, where loco pilots are briefed on seasonal wildlife patterns. Drivers learn to recognise pugmarks, scat and warning signs posted by beat guards, and are encouraged to use the emergency horn sequence when crossing designated wildlife zones. Station masters are trained to log any animal sighting, even of a single peacock or monitor lizard, into a shared messaging group monitored by forest range officers.
Reward and recognition schemes have been quietly effective. Crews that report accurate sightings receive certificates signed by the chief wildlife warden, and the best-performing division each year is honoured at a ceremony in Gandhinagar. This kind of soft governance echoes Australian initiatives such as the Truckies for Wildlife programme run by NSW Local Land Services, which rewards truck drivers who report injured wombats and koalas along regional roads. Both approaches recognise that the people who actually travel the corridor are the most valuable sensors a conservation agency has.
Veterinary response and carcass management
When collisions do happen, speed of response determines whether an animal survives. The forest department has signed memoranda with Indian Railways to ensure that the nearest forest vehicle, not a railway maintenance van, reaches the site first. Forest veterinarians carry immobilisation equipment, field dressing kits and satellite phones, coordinating with railway traffic control to slow or briefly halt trains in the affected block. A dedicated 24-hour helpline, advertised at level crossings, alerts the nearest forest beat within minutes.
Carcasses are documented with photographic evidence, GPS coordinates and species identification before disposal, following National Tiger Conservation Authority guidelines. The necropsy data feeds back into the mapping dashboard, helping engineers refine crossing placement. Australian wildlife hospitals run by organisations such as Wildlife Victoria and Sydney's WIRES offer a useful comparison, their rapid-response models often funded by mining royalties and state transport budgets. Gujarat's system is younger and less resourced, but its integration with railway operations gives it an edge that few Australian networks have matched, because the forest department and the railway speak to each other before, during and after an incident.
Where the programme is heading
The next phase of Gujarat's plan is ambitious. Drone-based thermal surveys will detect animal movements before new track doubling projects commence in the Saurashtra region. A central command centre in Gandhinagar, modelled loosely on the Australian Maritime Safety Authority's coordination style, will track wildlife alerts in near real time. The department also plans to coordinate with National Highways Authority of India engineers who manage parallel road corridors where many of the same species are struck.
Researchers from the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Gandhinagar, are working alongside forest officers on the first peer-reviewed analysis of crossing structure effectiveness in the state. Their findings will be shared with the Ministry of Railways and could shape national guidelines. For Australians who manage their own wildlife-rail conflicts, this is a paper worth watching, because data emerging from Gujarat is likely to influence mitigation standards across South Asia.
Readers wanting to see how these corridors fit into Gujarat's wider ecological picture, including the gazelle movements across the Banni, will find the state forest department's storytelling pages a good starting point. Track the maps, follow the herds and consider how a fence, a culvert or a speed limit can decide whether a species reaches the next monsoon.