THE CONTEXT: Ecologists are expressing concerns over the inclusion of larger number of species in the new schedules of the Wildlife Protection (Amendment) Act, 2022, with no consultation, process or logic.
WILDLIFE PROTECTION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2022
The Act amends the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 which regulates the protection of wild animals, birds and plants.
Some of the provisions are:
- Implement the provisions of CITES: The Amended Act seeks to implement the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Under CITES, plant and animal specimens are classified into three categories (Appendices) based on the threat to their extinction. The Convention requires countries to regulate the trade of all listed specimens through permits. It also seeks to regulate the possession of live animal specimens.
- Penalties: The Amended Act increases the prescribed imprisonment terms and fines for violating the provisions of the Act.
- Rationalising schedules:Earlier, the Wildlife Protection Act had six schedules one for specially protected plants, four for specially protected animals, and one for vermin species.
The amended Act reduces the total number of schedules to four by:
- Reducing the number of schedules for specially protected animals to two (one for greater protection level)
- Removes the schedule for vermin species
- Inserts a new schedule for specimens listed in the Appendices under CITES (scheduled specimens)
- Conservation reserves: Under the earlier Act, state governments may declare areas adjacent to national parks and sanctuaries as a conservation reserve, for protecting flora and fauna, and their habitat. The Amended Act empowers the central government to also notify a conservation reserve.
ISSUES:
- Increased the number of species:The Amended Act seeks to increase the species protected under the law. In brief, Schedule 1, which confers the highest protection, contains about 600 species of vertebrates and hundreds of invertebrates, while Schedule 2 contains about 2,000 species (with 1,134 species of birds alone). This rationalisation has meant the inclusion of a very large number of species in Schedule I, which was meant essentially for critically endangered and endangered species. This also goes against the scientific logic of studying populations in the wild before deciding to place a species in Schedule I.
- Only two level of protection: The amendment Act sought to rationalise the schedules, and has created only two main levels of protection for animals — Schedule I specifying the animal species with the highest level of protection, and Schedule II specifying the animal species with a relatively lower degree of protection. Schedule III in the amendment Act is for plant species, and Schedule IV is for species protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
- More scrutiny for research: One of the issues with the new system of schedules is that scientists may require two levels of permissions from the state and the Centre to collect specimens. Any handling of animals in Schedule I requires permission from MOEFCC in addition to the state. Thus, any sample collection, tagging, ringing, etc. will now require state and Central permission. Thus, research on animals on both Schedules 1 and II will become highly restricted.
- Issue of prioritisation: Another issue is about the new system not prioritising species as per their ecological importance, including whether they are endangered or not, whether their habitat is degraded or not. As Jackals and bonnet macaques are listed in the same protection as tigers and rhinos in Schedule I. On the other hand, the white-bellied sholakili is in Schedule 1, but the Palani laughingthrush, a bird with similar ecology and a far more restricted distribution, is in Schedule 2. This shows concern with conservation of species.
- Limited consultation: A group of ecologists pointed out that the list of species in the amendment Act appears to have been created with little or no consultation. Only a few wildlife ecologists were aware of large-scale changes to the list of species in the schedules. Consequently, the outcomes of the new schedules are not based on science.
- Issue of resources: Despite listing of hundreds of species of mammals and over 1,000 species of birds it is unclear where resources should be allocated on the basis of this list.
- Impact on people: One of the more important issues concerns the impact on people. Various Schedule 1 species pose enormous physical, mental and economic harm to people. And yet people are told to learn ‘co-existence’ and WLPA serves to enforce this viewpoint. For example, the new Act elevates wild pigs and nilgai to Schedule 1, which means that the few States that have now allowed limited culling of problematic animals may not be able to retain that policy.
- Impact on livelihood of local communities: The WLPA also has a restrictive view on hunting and the use of animals, even when it has been done traditionally for hundreds of years, which affects the livelihood of local communities.
THE WAY FORWARD:
- Protect Local Communities: As local communities are dependent on the wildlife for their livelihood, there should be regulated use of forest resources to support the livelihoods of local communities.
- Transparency in research: There must be a transparent and time-bound process of granting permissions to research projects, which are necessary to understand species and have conservation implications. In the future, India will need to rely on specialised wildlife biologists and disease ecologists to understand rapidly emerging health threats to wildlife and humans and recommend innovative conservation plans and hence research in wildlife should be encouraged and facilitated.
- Need for prioritization: The listing of species has led to an imbalance in the allocation of resources for the protection of vulnerable species. There is an urgent need to prioritize the wildlife animals who are most vulnerable on the list, and that should be done with proper consultation. There should be a very scientific basis for the inclusion of species in schedules, and that should be updated from time to time.
THE CONCLUSION: The recent amendment to Wildlife Protection Act has led to enormous impact on conservation of species, research and livelihood as well. Therefore, all three issues conservation, people’s issues, and research need to be attended with different degrees of urgency.
PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTION
Q. How does the draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2020 differ from the existing EIA Notification, 2006? (2020)
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION
Q. The recent amendments to the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 can have debilitating effects on research and conservation of species. Examine and suggest measures to address the issue.
Spread the Word