Wildlife protection needs an enabling legal framework…..Sanjay Upadhyay
Fragmentation of habitat, poor implementation of laws, developmental pressures, lack of capacity, especially of the frontline staff, are the clichéd key reasons of depleting wildlife, but is there a larger design element that ails our frame itself? I dare say, yes. The enactment of the Wildlife Act in 1972 at best was an emotional response to an international commitment and the run up to the Stockholm Conference in 1972.
The subsequent amendments are at best knee-jerk reactions to certain symptoms. The high-profile Tiger Task Force recommended certain amendments that are residual in nature and for which a central government committee was formed as well. But even after three years of this committee, it seems quite clear that no residual or window dressing approach to the basic law will help protect our wildlife. Its time to take look at the basic frame itself. There are serious design flaws in the Wildlife Protection Act and it has not responded to the new challenges that have emerged.
Let me start with an illustration with the definition of a wild animal itself. It seems that any wild animal, unless found wild in nature and in the Schedule, does not qualify to be a wild animal and hence cannot be protected under this law. There are many more definitional areas of concern! I will let it pass for now.
Let me elaborate some more fundamental concerns about wildlife from the legal perspective. Wildlife is a concurrent subject in the Indian Constitution. The Wildlife Act is a central legislation where the states have been made the primary implementers of the law. It is ironical then that the subsequent amendments are aimed towards centralising the whole approach to wildlife conservation.
The role of the state governments has been gradually eroded with each amendment. The removal of power to list animals in a given Schedule, the abrogation of power to alter boundaries of a sanctuary to the National Board of Wildlife from the state legislature, the curbing of freedom of chief wildlife warden and making his/her decisions subject to the National Board of Wildlife, lack of any incentives to states for better wildlife conservation, the direct control of tiger reserves under the National Tiger Conservation Authority have left the states alienated and given them a secondary role in exercise of powers while making them primarily accountable for any depletion and as the first victim of any default in wildlife conservation. The bigger question therefore is: will this strategy work? This trend seen over the past 15 years is certainly not helping wildlife conservation.
It is, therefore, time to strengthen state regimes with adequate incentives and powers to combat wildlife and more importantly believe in them. It’s time that we make institutions like Wildlife Institute of India statutory institutions, where its evidence has conclusive value; it’s time to break the syndicate of wildlife crime by further strengthening the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau and spread its network wide and large. Most importantly, it’s time to elicit support from and respond to common citizens for wildlife conservation. Only then there is a remote chance of saving Indias wildlife. This is only possible if we re-enact the Act itself.
The writer is a Supreme Court advocate and member of the government committee to examine and suggest amendments in the Wildlife Protection Act
URL: http://www.financialexpress.com/news/wildlife-protection-needs-an-enabling-legal-framework/710748/