THE CONTEXT: The 15th Conference of Parties (COP15) to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) on December 19, 2022. The framework has 23 targets that the world needs to achieve by 2030. The following article intends to analyse the efficacy and significance of the Kunming-Montreal GBF from UPSC perspective.

THE KUNMING-MONTREAL GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY FRAMEWORK (GBF): KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) is a global agreement between countries to protect biodiversity and ensure its sustainable use. The GBF is currently under negotiation, with the aim of finalizing the agreement at the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Kunming, China, in 2022.
• The GBF builds on the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, which was adopted by the CBD in 2010, and aims to set out a new, ambitious framework for biodiversity protection and restoration beyond 2020. The GBF is expected to be structured around a set of targets and indicators, which will help to track progress and hold countries accountable for their commitments.
• The GBF is viewed as a critical tool for achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, particularly Goal 14 (Life Below Water) and Goal 15 (Life on Land). The agreement is also seen as essential for ensuring the long-term viability of ecosystems and the many services they provide to human societies, such as food, water, and clean air.

Major highlights:

• The framework has 23 targets that the world needs to achieve by 2030. The targets are ambitious, considering that biodiversity is in a poor state.
• In 2020, the world failed to meet the last set of targets, the Aichi Targets. Countries would need to ensure success this time around.
• Delegates were able to build consensus around the deal’s most ambitious target of protecting 30% of the world’s land and seas by the decade’s end, a goal known as 30-by-30.
• The deal also directs countries to allocate $200 billion per year for biodiversity initiatives from both the public and private sectors.
• The Global Environment Facility has been requested to establish a Special Trust Fund to support the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework (“GBF Fund”).

KEY TARGETS OF GBF

• 30×30 Deal: Restore 30% degraded ecosystems globally (on land and sea) by 2030. Conserve and manage 30% areas (terrestrial, inland water, and coastal and marine) by 2030.
• Stop the extinction of known species, and by 2050 reduce tenfold the extinction risk and rate of all species (including unknown).
• Reduce risk from pesticides by at least 50% by 2030.
• Reduce nutrients lost to the environment by at least 50% by 2030.
• Reduce pollution risks and negative impacts of pollution from all sources by 2030 to levels that are not harmful to biodiversity and ecosystem functions.
• Reduce global footprint of consumption by 2030, including through significantly reducing overconsumption and waste generation and halving food waste.
• Sustainably manage areas under agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries, and forestry and substantially increase agroecology and other biodiversity-friendly practices.
• Tackle climate change through nature-based solutions.
• Reduce the rate of introduction and establishment of invasive alien species by at least 50% by 2030.
• Secure the safe, legal and sustainable use and trade of wild species by 2030.

MAJOR OUTCOMES OF COP 15

The 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP15), which was held in Kunming, China, in October 2021, was a major milestone in global efforts to protect biodiversity. In addition to finalizing the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), COP15 produced several other major outcomes, including:

• The Kunming Declaration: This is a political statement that reaffirms the commitment of governments to protect biodiversity and implement the GBF. The declaration recognizes the urgent need to take action to address the drivers of biodiversity loss, such as habitat destruction, overexploitation, climate change, and pollution.
• A post-2020 global biodiversity strategy: This strategy sets out a framework for achieving the objectives of the GBF and provides guidance for national and regional implementation. The strategy includes a set of 21 targets, known as the “Kunming Targets,” which aim to halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity and ensure the sustainable use of natural resources by 2030.
• A new funding mechanism: The COP15 established a new financial mechanism to support the implementation of the GBF and the post-2020 global biodiversity strategy. The mechanism will be funded through a combination of public and private sources, including contributions from governments, international organizations, and the private sector.
• The establishment of a High-Level Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: The panel will provide scientific guidance and advice to governments and stakeholders on how to achieve the objectives of the GBF and the post-2020 global biodiversity strategy.
• The recognition of the critical role of indigenous peoples and local communities in biodiversity conservation: The COP15 recognized the importance of traditional knowledge and practices in protecting biodiversity and the need to ensure the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in decision-making processes related to biodiversity.

ANALYSING COP 15

The 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP15) was a critical conference for global efforts to protect biodiversity. However, the conference also faced several issues and challenges that need to be addressed in order to effectively protect biodiversity. Some of these issues include:

• Ambition gap: Some stakeholders and experts argue that the commitments and targets outlined in the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and the post-2020 global biodiversity strategy are not ambitious enough to effectively address the drivers of biodiversity loss. There are concerns that the targets may not be sufficient to halt or reverse the decline of biodiversity and that more ambitious goals are needed. In 2020, the world had failed to meet the last set of targets, the Aichi Targets. Countries would need to ensure success this time round.
• Implementation and funding gap: There is a concern that the implementation of the GBF and the post-2020 global biodiversity strategy will require significant financial resources and technical support, particularly in developing countries. Some stakeholders have called for more ambitious funding commitments and a better mechanism to ensure that the funding reaches the countries and communities that need it the most.
• Governance and accountability gap: The effectiveness of the GBF and the post-2020 global biodiversity strategy will depend on the governance and accountability mechanisms put in place to ensure their implementation. There is a concern that the governance and accountability mechanisms currently proposed may not be sufficient to ensure that countries and stakeholders meet their commitments. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, adoption of the new targets is already delayed by two years leaving lesser time for the countries to achieve the targets.
• Inequity and social justice: Some stakeholders have expressed concerns that the GBF and the post-2020 global biodiversity strategy may not sufficiently address the social and environmental justice issues surrounding biodiversity conservation. They argue that the interests of local and indigenous communities need to be better integrated into the conservation efforts and that the conservation measures should not exacerbate social inequalities.
• Lack of political will: Finally, there is a concern that some governments may lack the political will to implement the commitments made at the COP15 and to take the necessary actions to protect biodiversity. This is particularly a concern in the face of other pressing issues such as climate change, economic development, and social issues that may take priority over biodiversity conservation.

INDIA’S VOCAL PRESENCE AT THE COP 15

India was one of the key participants in the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP15) held in Kunming, China. India presented its demands and expectations at the conference, which included the following:

• Adequate funding for biodiversity conservation: India highlighted the need for increased financial support for developing countries to effectively address the challenges of biodiversity conservation. It called for a significant increase in funding from developed countries to support developing countries’ efforts to conserve biodiversity.
• Capacity building and technology transfer: India stressed the importance of capacity building and technology transfer to enhance the ability of developing countries to implement biodiversity conservation measures effectively. It called for the establishment of a mechanism to facilitate technology transfer and capacity building for developing countries.
• Traditional knowledge and practices: India emphasized the critical role of traditional knowledge and practices in biodiversity conservation and called for the recognition and protection of the rights of local and indigenous communities in this regard.
• Access and benefit-sharing: India highlighted the importance of ensuring equitable access and benefit-sharing arrangements for the use of genetic resources, particularly for developing countries that are rich in biodiversity.
• Synergy with other international agreements: India stressed the importance of ensuring synergy between the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity and other international agreements, such as the Paris Agreement on climate change and the Sustainable Development Goals.

Overall, India’s demands and expectations at the COP15 reflect its commitment to conserving biodiversity and ensuring the sustainable use of natural resources. India’s approach to biodiversity conservation emphasizes the importance of traditional knowledge, capacity building, and equitable access and benefit-sharing arrangements. It also emphasizes the need for international cooperation and support to effectively address the challenges of biodiversity conservation, particularly for developing countries.

WHY SHOULD WE PRESERVE BIODIVERSITY?

Biodiversity, or the variety of life on Earth, provides a range of benefits that are essential for the functioning of ecosystems and for human well-being. Some of the key benefits of biodiversity are:

• Ecosystem services: Biodiversity provides a range of ecosystem services, such as pollination, nutrient cycling, soil formation, and climate regulation. These services are essential for the functioning of ecosystems and for human well-being, as they support food production, water purification, and climate stability, among other things.
• Genetic resources: Biodiversity provides genetic resources that are used in a range of industries, such as agriculture, medicine, and biotechnology. These genetic resources are used to develop new crops, medicines, and other products, and have significant economic value.
• Cultural and recreational value: Biodiversity has cultural and recreational value, providing opportunities for spiritual, aesthetic, and recreational experiences. Biodiversity is also central to many cultural traditions and practices, such as indigenous knowledge and practices related to the use of plants and animals.
• Economic value: Biodiversity has significant economic value, providing employment opportunities and supporting industries such as tourism, fisheries, and forestry. Biodiversity also provides valuable ecosystem services that are essential for economic activities, such as crop production, water supply, and climate regulation.
• Resilience and adaptability: Biodiversity provides resilience and adaptability to ecosystems, making them more resilient to environmental changes, such as climate change and natural disasters. Biodiversity also provides resilience and adaptability to human societies, enabling them to cope with environmental changes and to maintain their livelihoods.

Overall, biodiversity provides a range of benefits that are essential for the functioning of ecosystems and for human well-being. These benefits highlight the importance of conserving biodiversity and using it sustainably for the benefit of present and future generations.

FACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR DECLINING BIODIVERSITY

There are a multitude of factors that can contribute to the decline in biodiversity. Some of the most significant factors include:

• Habitat destruction: As human populations grow and expand into natural areas, they destroy or modify habitats through activities such as deforestation, urbanization, and agriculture. This can directly reduce biodiversity by destroying or fragmenting habitats, as well as indirectly affecting biodiversity by altering the availability of resources and disrupting ecological processes.
• Climate change: Rising temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and other effects of climate change can directly affect the distribution and survival of species, as well as alter the timing of key life cycle events such as breeding and migration.
• Over-exploitation: Overfishing, hunting, and harvesting of wild species for commercial or subsistence purposes can lead to population declines and even extinction.
• Pollution: Chemicals, plastics, and other pollutants can negatively impact biodiversity by contaminating habitats, poisoning organisms, and altering ecosystems.
• Invasive species: Non-native species introduced to a new habitat can outcompete native species, alter ecological processes, and disrupt entire ecosystems.
• Disease: Outbreaks of disease can have devastating impacts on populations of species, particularly in cases where the disease is introduced to a population with no natural immunity.
• Human population growth: As human populations grow, the demand for resources such as food, water, and land increases, leading to further habitat destruction and other impacts on biodiversity.
• Fragmentation of habitats: Habitat fragmentation is the process by which large, continuous habitats are broken up into smaller, isolated patches. This can have significant impacts on biodiversity by reducing the amount of available habitat and increasing the likelihood of species extinction.

These factors can interact in complex ways, making it difficult to predict or address the impacts of biodiversity loss. However, efforts to address these factors can include conservation measures such as habitat protection, restoration, and management, as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, regulating the trade of wildlife, and controlling the spread of invasive species.

COP 15: THE WAY AHEAD

The following are some key steps that can be taken to move forward after the COP 15 conference:

• Implementation of the GBF: The GBF provides a framework for action to address the current biodiversity crisis. It is essential to ensure its effective implementation at the national and international levels. This will require strong political will, adequate resources, and effective governance mechanisms.
• Strengthening of national biodiversity strategies and action plans: Countries need to strengthen their national biodiversity strategies and action plans to align with the objectives of the GBF. This will require effective engagement of all stakeholders, including indigenous and local communities, civil society, and the private sector.
• Integration of biodiversity conservation into development planning: Biodiversity conservation needs to be integrated into development planning to ensure that economic growth is sustainable and does not come at the expense of biodiversity. This will require a shift towards more sustainable production and consumption patterns, as well as the use of innovative technologies and practices.
• Increased financial support: Adequate financial support is critical for the effective implementation of the GBF. Developed countries need to fulfill their commitments to provide financial resources to support developing countries in their efforts to conserve biodiversity.
• Public awareness and education: Public awareness and education are essential for promoting biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Education and awareness-raising campaigns should target all sections of society, including youth, women, and indigenous and local communities.
• Monitoring, reporting, and evaluation: It is important to establish monitoring, reporting, and evaluation mechanisms to track progress in the implementation of the GBF and to identify areas where additional action is needed.

THE CONCLUSION: The adoption of the GBF at the COP 15 conference provides a comprehensive plan of action to address the current biodiversity crisis. The effective implementation of the GBF requires strong political will, adequate resources, effective governance mechanisms, and the active participation of all stakeholders. Overall, the outcomes of COP15 represent a significant step forward in global efforts to protect biodiversity and ensure the sustainable use of natural resources. However, the success of these outcomes will depend on the willingness of governments and stakeholders to implement the commitments made at the conference and take concrete actions to address the drivers of biodiversity loss.

Questions:

• “The targets decided under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), are ambitious, considering that biodiversity is in a poor state.” Examine Critically.
• “By the next CBD COP in 2024, governments have a lot of homework to turn these agreed goals into actions at home.” In the light of the statement, discuss the importance of having a strong political will and effective governance mechanisms for achieving targets under the COP 15.

THE CONTEXT: With the President’s assent, on December 19, 2022 the Bill to amend the Wildlife (Protection) Act (WLPA), 1972, is now officially law. The Rajya Sabha passed it on December 8, 2022 and the Lok Sabha a year ago. This Act regulates the protection of wild animals, birds and plants and seeks to increase the species protected under the law. In this article, there is an analysis of the amended act and issue related and steps that needs to be taken to ensure wildlife protection.

PROVISIONS OF WPA, 1972 AND WPA, 2022: COMPARISON

WPA 1972

• WPA Act is the first act which for the first time concluded a comprehensive list of the country’s endangered wildlife.
• Act prohibited the hunting of endangered species.
• Scheduled animals are prohibited from being traded as per the Act’s provisions.
• The Act provides for licenses for the sale, transfer, and possession of some wildlife species
• It provides for the establishment of wildlife sanctuaries, national parks, etc.
• Conservation reserves: Under the Act, state governments may declare areas adjacent to national parks and sanctuaries as a conservation reserve, for protecting flora and fauna, and their habitat.
• Inclusion in CITES :It helped India become a party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). CITES is an international agreement between governments to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten the survival of the species.
• Provision of Schedules: The Act created six schedules which gave varying degrees of protection to classes of flora and fauna. Schedule I and Schedule II (Part II) get absolute protection, and offences under these schedules attract the maximum penalties. The schedules also include species that may be hunted.
• Penalties: (Section 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act): If the offences committed in connection with the animal described in Schedule-I or Part-II of Schedule-II where the offence was related to hunting in the sanctuary or a national park or exchange in the territory of a sanctuary or a national park, such an offence shall be punishable by imprisonment not less than three years but up to seven years and a fine not exceeding ten thousand rupees.

WPA 2022

• Act amends the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by increasing the species protected under the law.
• Centre can designate a management authority to grant export or import permits for the trade of specimens and a scientific authority to give advice on the trade impact on the survival of the specimens
• Centre will appoint a Chief Wild Life Warden who processes applications for breeding in captivity or artificially propagating any scheduled specimen.
• Conservation reserves: Under the Act, though state governments still have powers to declare areas adjacent to national parks and sanctuaries as a conservation reserve but act also empowers the central government to a notify a conservation reserve.
• Obligations under 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.  The Act seeks to implement these provisions of CITES.
• Rationalizing schedules: Act reduces the total number of schedules to four by: (i) reducing the number of schedules for specially protected animals to two (one for greater protection level), (ii) removes the schedule for vermin species, and (iii) inserts a new schedule for specimens listed in the Appendices under CITES (scheduled specimens).
• Penalties: The Amended Act prescribes imprisonment terms and fines for violating the provisions of the Act.  The Act increases these fines. Act also enhances the penalties prescribed for violation of provisions of the Act. For ‘General violations’, the maximum fine is increased from Rs 25,000 o Rs. 1 lakh. In case of Specially protected animals, the minimum fine of Rs. 10,000 has been enhanced to Rs. 25,000.

THE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES OF WILD LIFE FAUNA AND FLORA (CITES)

• It is a global agreement among governments to regulate or ban international trade in species under threat.
• CITES remains one of the cornerstones of international conservation. There are 184 member Parties and trade is regulated in more than 38,000 species. Representatives of CITES nations meet every two to three years at a Conference of the Parties (or COP) to review progress and adjust the lists of protected species, which are grouped into three categories with different levels of protection:

1. Appendix I: Includes the world’s most endangered plants and animals, such as tigers and gorillas. International commercial trade in these species, or even parts of them, is completely banned, except in rare cases such as scientific research.
2. Appendix II: Contains species like corals that are not yet threatened with extinction, but which could become threatened if unlimited trade were allowed. Also included are “look-alike” species that closely resemble those already on the list for conservation reasons. Plants and animals in this category can be traded internationally, but there are strict rules.
3. Appendix III: Species whose trade is only regulated within a specific country can be placed on Appendix III if that country requires cooperation from other nations to help prevent exploitation.

CITES also brings together law enforcement officers from wildlife authorities, national parks, customs, and police agencies to collaborate on efforts to combat wildlife crime targeted at animals such as elephants and rhinos.

POSITIVES OF THE AMENDED ACT

• Beneficial for local communities: Act is beneficial for local tribal communities as it inserts an provision to provide for certain permitted activities such as grazing, and this move protecting forest land is critical as it is equally important to safeguard the rights of the people who have been residing there since ages. It would accord greater importance to safeguarding the rights of the local tribal communities through better management of protected areas and by providing them livelihood opportunities.
• Protection of endangered species: The act aims to preserve many natural areas and preserve ongoing declines of numerous species, which seeks to strengthen the protection of endangered species and enhance punishment for illegal wildlife trade.
• Increase in green cover: Act aims to increase in green cover and forest land in the country by enhancing penalties and regulating invasive species.
• Enacting Provisions of CITES: Illegal animal trade is regulated under Custom Act, Foreign Trade Development Regulation Act and Exim Policy and Wildlife Protection Act. However, wild life (protection) amendment act 2022 is an upgradation in that it will aim to implement a dedicated, independent framework to regulate the international trade of listed specimens in adherence to the provisions of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora to which India is a signatory.
• Protected areas regulation: The act aims to better manage and regulate protected areas by providing for authority and stringent laws with penalties. Amendment also makes consulting the Gram Sabha in the management plan for all Wildlife Sanctuaries is mandatory.

CRITICISM OF THE AMENDED ACT

• Stringent policing framework: One of concern is the inclusion of a stringent policing framework as penalties have been increased four times for general violations which need proper implementation rather than just used as a tool to harass local tribal communities.
• Centralisation of powers: It is a further centralisation of powers as the new wildlife bill also allows the constitution of standing committees that will eventually weaken the authority of state wildlife boards and consequences of such deterrents are usually borne by marginalized forest-dwelling groups. It also raised concerns about the move to establish standing committees at SBWLs, saying that this could turn them into rubber stamp machines for wildlife clearances and that they might not be able to function with either independence or environmental integrity.
• Not enough consultation: These new provisions need detailed and consultative deliberations among all stakeholders. The provisions of the amendment may not materialize if it had not taken concerns of all stakeholders and the list of species appears to have been created with little or no consultation.
• Easier transportation of animals: Another concern is that the amendments have not defined what purposes elephants can be used for and have perhaps made it easier for the animals to be transported across the country. Amendment made to Section 43 of the WLPA permits elephants, a Schedule I animal, to be used for ‘religious or any other purpose’. Wildlife activists have criticised the move and animal expere ‘any other purpose’ seemed to have a limitless meaning.
• Reduced power of state board of wildlife: There is also concern that the powers of the State Boards for Wildlife are being diluted, which might prevent them from functioning with either independence or environmental integrity. In their submission to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests, the Legal Initiative for Forests and Environment (LIFE), an NGO that works on environmental laws and advocacy, said that the provision would render the State boards defunct as a handful of members could function “with no accountability to the full Board.
• Did not address human wildlife conflict and eco sensitive rules: Experts pointed that the government missed the opportunity to address the issues relating to Human-Wildlife conflict and Eco-sensitive zone rules.
• Incomplete list of species: Experts pointed that the species listed in all the 3 schedules of the Act is incomplete as per the report submitted by the Parliamentary Standing Committee and there is need for greater inclusion of scientists, botanists, biologists in process of listing all existing species of wildlife which provides for possession, transfer and breeding of living scheduled animal species.

ANALYSIS OF THE AMENDMENT

SIGNIFICANCE OF AMENDED ACT

• Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 has been amended several times  and since its enactment and  it has been referred as one of the most successful environmental legislations in India which gave legal protection to important wildlife habitats, native wildlife and laid the foundation for important institutions like National Tiger Conservation Authority, National and State Board of Wildlife, Wildlife Crime Control Bureau. However, the changes brought by the 2022 Act is one of the most significant amendments till date. This amendment marks an important landmark for Indian conservation, as it has been 50 years since the enactment of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.

ALIGNING TO GLOBAL NEEDS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

• Globally, South Asia is set to be one of the most drastically impacted regions by climate change and emerging diseases. In the future, India will need to rely on a well-trained cadre of wildlife biologists and disease ecologists to understand rapidly emerging threats to wildlife and humans and recommend innovative conservation plans using a ‘One Health’ approach. If the revised schedules in the amended Act end up being an enabler to understand the natural world and its species in a rapidly changing world, it would be a great step forward.

LYING IN GREY AREA

• From its inception, the WPA was meant to protect and preserve animals, birds and plants in their natural habitats. There is the existence of species in a legal grey area for example, In 1977, the Indian elephant was included in Schedule I, which accords the highest degree of protection to wild animals. While elephants continue to exist in a legal grey area despite the intent of the law has always been to protect and preserve them.

PRESERVATION OF SPECIES

• This Act arguably resulted in the preservation of many natural areas and prevented the then ongoing declines of numerous species. Though it was formulated by a select few and incorporated, it ensured cultural diversity in human-environmental relationships.

NEED OF A MORE INCLUSIVE FRAMEWORK

• The use of wildlife was allowed within the Act when it was first passed, but became viewed as problematic over time even for local communities. While the world is moving towards more inclusive models of conservation, India’s premier law for wildlife protection has not kept pace with the changing moral, ethical and social milieu, and seems to be moving back in time.

NEED OF SCIENTIFIC BASIS

• Today there are large databases on many groups of species across India, but none of this seems to have been incorporated into the decision-making. Consequently, the outcomes are not based on science, which is particularly odd given the breadth of ongoing scientific research and existing expertise in India, there is need to include scientific basis while demarcating species.

ISSUES IN WILDLIFE PROTECTION IN INDIA

• Restrictive not enabling act: Wild Life act is primarily a legal instrument that legislates and provides for punitive actions for trade, trafficking and other forms of illegal use of species. It is a restrictive act and not an enabling one and is not well designed to prioritize species for conservation or set research goals.
• Not enough research based on science: While many wildlife ecologists were aware of submissions to the Joint Parliamentary Committee with regard to the sections governing research and other provisions of the Act but despite there are oday large databases on many groups of vertebrates across India, but none of this seems to have been incorporated into the decision-making on the basis of enough research that is based on science.
• Not transparent: The current listing of species in wildlife protection act has no transparent methodology mechanism, which is the crux of the problem as IUCN Red Listing processes have a clear methodology with relatively well-worked-out data-driven criteria that determines whether a species meets the criteria for a specific threat category which should be taken into account.
• Exclusionary: Default conservation actions, whether driven by IUCN or Wild Life Act Schedule priorities tend to be overwhelmingly exclusionary and not inclusive for both species and local communities. Thus, listing species often has little positive conservation impact and negative consequences in many cases.
• Not proper implementation: Real estate sharks are using their money and muscle power or their contacts in the bureaucracy and in the government for not implementing the laws.
• Criminalize forest dwellers: Act criminalize oppressed caste groups for mere residence in and around forest and criminalize day to day activities like collecting minor produce. It Violates the provisions of the constitution and other acts that grant forest dwellers community rights over forests.

THE WAY FORWARD

• Ensuring more viability: Even the IUCN Red List, the global standard for conservation prioritization, clearly states that it is policy-relevant but not policy prescriptive. This means that listing a species as ‘Critically Endangered’ or ‘Endangered’ does not prescribe a single particular course of action for conservation. In other words, the conservation action needed to ensure the viability of two ‘Critically Endangered’ species can be completely different from each other, depending on the biology of the species (body mass, range size, etc.), and the social, economic and political contexts that the species exist in.
• Open access regime for research: There is a need for an open access regime for science and research that can help advance both ecology and conservation in the country with proper regulation and implementation of scientific research.
• Need of democratic approach: There is need for democratic and data-driven approach for conservation prioritization and should be independent of act-based restrictions to conservation actions and approaches. This should comprise a more inclusive set of such approaches that should take into account the country’s true cultural diversity, not just urban elite mindsets and practices.
• Implementation should be equally stringent: To protect the wildlife, not only should the laws be strict but their implementation should also be equally stringent as without proper implementation there is no point of just listing out provisions.
• Increasing dialogue and consultation: There is a need for a process for a broader dialogue between a wide range of ecologists, social scientists, and state agencies so that we can arrive at a formulation that is better for wildlife, people and conservation.
• Need of proper methodology : There is need for proper methodology by prioritization of species for conservation and  proper punitive action for violating the Act and by regulation of scientific research.

THE CONCLUSION : Recently amendment act has been enacted to provide for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants with a view to ensure the ecological and environmental security of the country. However, there are still legal loopholes in the act which need to be addressed by acknowledging and to keep pace with changing moral, ethical and social milieu.

MAINS QUESTIONS

1. Wildlife protection has been a constant issue for balancing ecological conservation and rights of local communities. Analyse.
2. Discuss the provisions of recently amended Wildlife Protection Act in comparison to provisions of the original Act.